Al-Jazeera

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On how many occasions in the last month the British ambassador in Doha has raised the issue of Al-Jazeera operations with representatives of the state of Qatar.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's ambassador in Doha has regular meetings with both the Qatari Foreign Minister and the Director of European and American Affairs at the Qatari Foreign Ministry. The issue of Al-Jazeera was raised during the month in question. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, also discussed Al-Jazeera with the Qatari Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. That was an excellent Answer. I could not have written a better Answer myself. It will be greatly welcomed by all those people in the United Kingdom who look forward to an Al-Jazeera English language service. Can my noble friend impress upon Ministers in the Government the need to utilise the services of Al-Jazeera when they want to get a message over to people in the Arab world?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that pleasant little bouquet. We should not naturally assume that there will be English language translations of Al-Jazeera, but I do believe that the positive contribution Al-Jazeera has made to encouraging free debate on political and social issues in the Middle East is considerable. Of course we welcome the opportunities for United Kingdom Ministers to present their message directly to an Arab audience. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done so. Indeed, I did so myself only yesterday when discussing business opportunities for women in the Arab world.

Turkey: Human Rights

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are discussing with the Government of Turkey allegations of the use of torture in that country and of the denial of education in Kurdish to members of that minority.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our officials in Ankara discuss human rights issues regularly with the Turkish authorities and raise specific cases, including those highlighted by your Lordships. In June this year senior officials will launch a human rights dialogue with Turkey. Turkey's human rights record was discussed at the EC-Turkey Association Council in April and most recently last Friday 17th May at a meeting of political directors from Turkey and the European Union.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she say whether the Government had any success in their discussions with the Turkish Government? Has the noble Baroness read recent reports by Sir Nigel Rodney on torture in Turkey, which include, for example, falaka or bastinado and rape, and his comments on impunity for those who have inflicted torture?
	Will she ensure that recent arrests and prosecutions of students who have asked for lessons in the Kurdish language, together with the comments of the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, are brought to the attention urgently of the EU Commissioner with responsibility for expansion and enlargement?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refers. There is this year's report and there was another one in 1998. Of course, the contents of the reports are being put into the dialogue which the United Kingdom has on a bilateral basis and which we will take forward again next month, and indeed the discussions that are going forward on a European basis. The noble Lord can rest assured that we are very much alive to these difficulties and are raising them with the Turkish authorities.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while much further reform is required in Turkey, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has indicated, and while torture is revolting wherever it occurs, it would probably be unwise to link the necessary reforms in Turkey, which are beginning to go forward anyway, too closely with EU membership and its prospects, since that may not happen and since there appear to be some radical new thoughts in Turkey about the role that that great nation will play, which might be more of a bridge between the EU and Asia than actual membership of the EU itself?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that not only the Government in Turkey but most European countries look forward to being able to welcome Turkey into the EU in due course. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not all gloom over the issues about changes in humanitarian law in Turkey. There have been constitutional changes. They are working through the system. It is very much to be hoped that Turkish parliamentarians will continue to work speedily and indeed with a sense of purpose to bring home those reforms.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many of those reforms exist on paper only and are not implemented on the ground? Has she seen, for example, the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture? It says that in the Kurdish regions a substantial number of cases of torture are still occurring. Is she aware of the report of the Turkish human rights association, the IHD, which shows that more torture cases occurred in the first nine months of 2001 than in the whole of the year 2000?
	With regard to the teaching of the Kurdish language, does the noble Baroness agree that it is incompatible with the Copenhagen principles for Turkey to continue to resist minority language education and that that is a must for Turkey entering on to the ladder of accession?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Turkey is committed to the elimination of torture as a short-term priority in its national programme for the adoption of the acquis, which was published in response to the accession partnership declaration put forward by the EU. The Turkish Government are strengthening their legal and administrative measures to fight against torture. But of course the noble Lord is quite right. We also have to see real implementation of those measures. It is important to note that such measures were legislated upon, not only in October last year but again in March this year.
	As to Kurdish language education, that is another very important topic. Progress is being made on broadcasting, but there are issues still around using the official language of the country in schools, which is in the Turkish constitution. We very much hope that, within that constitution, Turkish authorities will find a way forward on the issue.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, that Turkey is looking eastwards at many of its former historical contacts, that in no way reduces the commitment of the Turkish Government, as we understood it—some parliamentarians went to Turkey a couple of weeks ago—to making accession to the European Union a very high priority? In that connection, it is precisely because of the importance that the Turkish Government attach to accession to the European Union that the intense discussions on the Copenhagen criteria are producing step-by-step progress. That does not detract at all from the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Nevertheless, that priority is there.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made the United Kingdom Government's position very clear; that we want to work with Turkey to eradicate the kinds of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has again brought to our attention today. But we do not believe that there is any falling off in Turkey's commitment in pursuing its European candidature. Indeed, I, too, have been in Turkey fairly recently. My impression was very much like my noble friend's impression—that our friends in Turkey want to pursue their application to join the European Union. In addition, we have seen the constitutional amendments brought forward by the Turkish Parliament which were passed with substantial majorities in both October last year and March this year. I think that gives a good indication of the way in which Turkey is moving.

Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite the appearances of a parliamentary regime in Turkey, it is the senior military influences in the National Security Council who really wield the reins of power? Those people are not particularly interested in improving Turkey's human rights records or in early entry to the European Union. Does that not limit our bargaining power somewhat, so that perhaps the only way in which we shall have any influence is by some form of economic sanctions or restricting military assistance? That is rather difficult at the moment when Turkey is so vital to our proposed operations in Afghanistan and the continuing operations against Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must be realistic about this issue. We know that Turkey must address many human rights issues. The Government are absolutely clear about that. That is why we are pursuing the arrangements that I described to your Lordships—bilateral discussions with Turkey next month on humanitarian issues.
	My noble friend should also read carefully the detailed list of constitutional amendments proposed last year and this year in the Turkish Parliament, which deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—the use of language but also issues surrounding the functioning of the National Security Council, use of the death penalty and several other serious issues, including freedom of thought and expression. Those are genuine changes proposed by the Turks and, for my part, I hope that they will be encouraged to implement them and that their efforts to reform will not be undercut.

Agricultural Shows: Biosecurity

The Earl of Onslow: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether regulations on biosecurity, including those applying to cow-pats, will impose any limitations on agricultural shows planned for this year.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the veterinary advice to government is that livestock shows pose a small but significant risk of the transmission of foot and mouth and other notifiable diseases. The biosecurity conditions attached to the shows' licence are designed to minimise that risk. The Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations and other stakeholders have played a positive role in the development of the biosecurity conditions, which are intended to cause the minimum limitation on livestock shows this year.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer that he gave to a Written Question asked by my noble friend Lady Byford. If we have foot and mouth disease in this country, there should be no cattle shows. If we do not have foot and mouth disease in this country, it is impossible to spread it. So why do we impose terrible damage on agricultural shows—several of which are unable to allow sheep, cattle or pigs to be present? Why do we have this ridiculous rule? Either we have foot and mouth disease, in which case there should be no shows; or we do not and there should be no silly regulations.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the devastation of British agriculture during the past few months—the past year—that is an irresponsible attitude. It would not be sensible for the House to support it. I recognise that I have given the same Answer to other noble Lords, because the same position applies.
	If there were another outbreak of foot and mouth or, indeed, any other notifiable disease, we know that the mingling of animals, and transmission from people who have handled animals to other animals, present the highest risk. That means that shows are a risk for the spread of the disease. Any responsible government and organiser of a show will observe the kind of biosecurity arrangements that we propose.
	The noble Earl is a little out of date. Under the previous rules, several organisers found it difficult to hold shows earlier this year. The vast majority of shows will go ahead—as from a couple of weeks ago, for sheep as well as for cattle.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in view of the new rules concerning farm animals at agricultural shows, will the Government insist that all footpaths crossing farmland where livestock graze should be closed with immediate effect?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I may say so, that is atypically illogical of the noble Baroness. The restriction on shows where livestock is shown—which may host thousands of people—is that animals are not to be handled and that the possibility is minimised of disease from what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, delicately referred to in his Question as cow-pats, being transmitted to other animals. The situation with ramblers is entirely different. The risk is absolutely minimal; there is not a single case of the transfer of the disease due to walkers. It is only when people who handle animals then handle other animals that there is a risk of the spread of the disease. In view of the enormous damage done to parts of the rural economy by the closure of footpaths during the early part of the epidemic last year, it is not sensible for the Government to restrict access to farms when the risk is so minimal.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the cost to individual shows, such as the Royal Bath and West Show, which he will visit next week and which will spend about £70,000 on biosecurity measures alone? Does he therefore understand the frustration that the rules appear to be interpreted differently in different parts of the country by his department? For example, the Royal Bath and West will have to scoop up cow-pats and cover the area with sawdust, but its organisers say that other shows will not have to do the same. Will the Minister ensure that the interpretation of the rules is fair and equal?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a slight problem of differential interpretation—possibly by officials but also by show organisers themselves. The rules regarding cow-pats relate only to the area where the public move if livestock are moved across those paths. Of itself, that is not a huge expense. Indeed, most shows would undertake that to the best of their ability in any case—regulations or no regulations. There are additional costs, which may be significant for large shows, but for the vast majority of shows the conditions can and are being met now that the post-15th May rules are known.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a fundamental fallacy underlies the Question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow? He presumes that having foot and mouth disease in the country, and knowing that you have, are contemporaneous events and that there is therefore no need for precautionary measures. I should have thought that the most cursory analysis of the most recent outbreak—when we now know that there was unreported disease in the country for at least four weeks—would suggest that a precautionary approach is in order.

Lord Whitty: Absolutely, my Lords. It is one of the great lessons of the outbreak that we must take precautions all the time. We are not returning to the situation that prevailed with movements or biosecurity before the latest outbreak. Many diseases may, in one way or another, break out in the country. We must ensure maximum observance of the rules, but minimum restriction in how those rules are applied to shows and to other movements.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those organisers of shows who have successfully staged them despite considerable difficulties deserve our congratulations and support? Furthermore, the same should apply to the owners of livestock who have fought through the red tape and successfully brought their livestock to shows.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am entirely willing to endorse the noble Lord's remarks. In the early part of the year it still appeared that many of those shows would not take place, or would do so only under severe restrictions. I am glad to say that many shows have now been held successfully and I congratulate both the organisers and those who have shown at them.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that we are now treating the agricultural economy and the country as though we have a permanent foot and mouth epidemic? Are the regulations, which so hinder agricultural shows, permanent or temporary?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, who follows these matters carefully, will note that the restrictions on movements, markets and shows have been progressively relaxed as the disease status has altered. However, in view of the devastation caused by the disease, both we and other European governments will be wise to recognise that some restriction on movement is necessary in all circumstances—in peacetime, as it were—to ensure that undetected disease does not spread in the devastating way that the foot and mouth epidemic spread.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, to some of us, it appears odd that any spokesman for his department should be so irrational as to accuse my noble friend Lady Trumpington of illogicality? That is a classic case of a rather grubby pot calling a brand new kettle black.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, speaking as a grubby pot, I must say that I prefaced my remarks about the question asked by the noble Baroness by expressing surprise. I thought that, for once, she had been slightly illogical. Normally, the House would not expect that of her, but on this occasion, there was a certain lack of logic in her intervention.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I could not possibly disagree with that.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister explain exactly what regulations apply to cow-pats?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the biosecurity regulations relates to the areas across which livestock might move and in which the public also move. The noble Earl may wish me to read them out, but I think that that would strain the tolerance of the House. The regulations relate to those public areas and only those areas.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before we move to the next Question—

Noble Lords: Order!

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am in order. There is plenty of time.
	I have a simple question for the Minister. Does his department believe that there is residual foot and mouth disease in the country, as implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it was clear from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she was not implying anything of the sort. She said that experience had taught us in a devastating way that we could not assume that there was no disease—foot and mouth disease or any other—in the country simply because it had not been reported. We must, therefore, take precautionary measures.
	In the Government's view, the country is FMD-free and has been for the period required by the international community. However, if there is unreported FMD in this country or other countries, the disease can spread. We must have some controls relating to the areas where the risk of the occurrence of the disease is highest.

Gibraltar

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what sense the recent talks about the future of Gibraltar between the Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar, were in the words of the Prime Minister's official spokesman "an interim staging post rather than make or break".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in the sense that the exchanges about Gibraltar continue. The discussion on 20th May was positive and constructive. The two Prime Ministers agreed that the talks in the Brussels process should continue. A further formal Brussels process meeting is being arranged for late June or early July.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the Government believe that the status quo is not an option, the people of Gibraltar must first be persuaded of that, before any agreements or declarations in principle can be made by the United Kingdom and Spain? Does she also accept that, unless the people of Gibraltar support an agreement on joint sovereignty, there can be no basis for such an agreement?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the two governments are discussing a range of options. It will, of course, be a matter for the people of Gibraltar to decide. That has been made clear, and it is in the 1969 constitution, which Her Majesty's Government have upheld rigorously. It has been made clear in the statements made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
	Anything that, in any way, proposes changes to the sovereignty of Gibraltar will be put before the people of Gibraltar. Everybody understands that considerable work will have to be put into the total agreement, if anyone is to vote for such arrangements.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it must be a long-term process and that confidence-building is needed to persuade the people of Gibraltar that it is in their long-term interest to have closer integration with Spain? We must make it clear that the Spanish Government are willing to offer the sort of concessions to the people of Gibraltar that they have failed to offer for the past 20 years. We must expect that the negotiations will, necessarily, take time and should not be rushed.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if we reach an agreement—like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I see it as very much a question of "if"—it must then be worked up into a detailed package that could be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right to say that it will take some time to do that. We would, of course, invite the Government of Gibraltar to join us and Spain in working up such a package, if we reach an initial agreement.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in the event that an agreement is reached and the people of Gibraltar reject it, will the agreement between the British Government and the Spanish Government remain in place, without being implemented, or will it fall?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there would still be an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Spain. However, it would be only a political agreement—if I can put it that way—with a small "p" and a small "a".
	The important point is that such an agreement would not be legally binding, in the sense that it could not be worked up into a treaty, and we would not sign or ratify a treaty until, of course, the whole matter had been put before the people of Gibraltar. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, by a "political agreement", does the Minister mean one that is not binding?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it could not be implemented. In that sense, it could not be legally binding if the people of Gibraltar voted against it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Gibraltarians have never harmed Spain in any way and that there is no justification for the way in which Spain has treated Gibraltar and its citizens?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I certainly agree that there have been regrettable incidents, in which Spain has behaved in a less than altogether fair way towards the people of Gibraltar. We have discussed those incidents several times, including the refusal to give telephone numbers to the people of Gibraltar and the considerable difficulties over, for example, delays at the border. It is to obviate such difficulties that Her Majesty's Government have been in discussion with Spain to try to find a better way forward and a better future for the people of Gibraltar.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it correct that, since 11th September, it has been discovered that the depots, bases and signalling facilities at Gibraltar are much more relevant to the battle against global terrorism and to the security of this island than was previously believed? Will the Minister explain the worries of the Secretary of State for Defence about the prospect of joint sovereignty?
	In the light of those serious worries, would it not be sensible to let the rather mishandled talks fail and turn to negotiations that concentrate on practical matters, such as the harassment of the people of Gibraltar? We should identify a constructive approach that will carry the people of Gibraltar forward with it on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, without going into intelligence matters, I can say that I agree with the noble Lord that our base in Gibraltar is important. It was before 11th September, and it still is. That is why my right honourable friend Peter Hain told the House of Commons that,
	"we will retain our full control over the military base on the Rock, which is of key strategic importance to us".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/02; col. 451.]
	My right honourable friend said that on 16th April, well before the letter dated 26th April from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to which, I think, the noble Lord is referring.
	The noble Lord knows that I will not comment on a leaked letter, and I invite him to consider the fact that one preceded the other. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe had already made it clear that we would maintain full control, in a military sense, over the Rock.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question to which my noble friend will have to answer "No". Is it not true that, if we were to ask the people of the United Kingdom what they thought on the issue of Gibraltar, they may come up with an answer which the people of Gibraltar might not necessarily like?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that would very much depend on which people in the United Kingdom one asked. I sometimes believe that if we asked Members of your Lordships' House that might not necessarily be so.
	I find it slightly disappointing that sometimes in answering these questions, as I have on many occasions, I have the feeling that some Members in your Lordships' House would rather the negotiations failed. That cannot be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Just as it was right to establish the Brussels process in 1984 under the party opposite, it is right to do everything we can to make these discussions a success.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 and 5, Schedule 3, Clauses 6 to 10, Schedule 4, Clauses 11 and 12, Schedule 5, Clauses 13 to 19, Schedule 6, Clauses 20 to 28, Schedule 7, Clauses 29 to 44, Schedule 8, Clauses 45 to 49, Schedule 9, Clauses 50 to 61, Schedule 10, Clause 62, Schedule 11, Clauses 63 to 84, Schedule 12, Clause 85, Schedule 13, Clauses 86 to 92.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wembley Stadium

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the progress of the National Stadium project. This fulfils my commitment to the House on 7th May to update honourable Members before Whitsun.
	"I would like to address four main points concerning the project. First, the extent and nature of the government responsibility for this FA project. Secondly, the allegations that arise from the James and Tropus reports into the early stages of the tendering process. Thirdly, to update the House on progress made since I last informed the House on 7th May. And, fourthly, I would like to comment on the lessons learnt and the changes put in hand as a consequence.
	"First, then, the role of government. Quite clearly, the project is primarily a matter for the FA. It wants a national stadium. It wants it at Wembley and it is prepared to pay for it. But it is a clear principle that big infrastructure projects require government engagement, whether financial or in facilitation. Patrick Carter's report has made that clear.
	"Government support is plainly a factor in the market's assessment of a project such as this. The first Wembley proposal was over-ambitious. It was poorly managed; the tendering process was flawed; secure bank lending was not achieved; costs escalated; and the Government's role was ambiguous. It was those weaknesses which led to delays; to the request from the FA for extra public funds, and to the Government's decision to ask Patrick Carter to carry out a full review of the project's feasibility.
	"Now, the Government can decide to support the FA or, of course, can walk away. If we walk away, it will almost certainly stop the project in its tracks. What we cannot, should not and will not do is to take over the direction of the project itself. That remains clearly with the FA.
	"However, when public funds are committed to a project, government do have a responsibility to ensure that proper standards are met to safeguard public investment and to secure the improvements to the management and governance of the project necessary for success. And that is what we are doing.
	"We are insisting on 'best practice' public-sector standards. We need this to protect the taxpayer and the lottery player. But that should also reassure the market that this is a worthy project to invest in.
	"Once these measures are in place, it is appropriate for us to meet some of the non-stadium infrastructure costs, and we have identified £20 million for that purpose. And of course we need to stay engaged with the project, to protect the public interest in the £120 million lottery grant made by Sport England.
	"To turn to my second point, honourable and right honourable Members may have read much in recent days about the Tropus and James reports into the stadium project. These reports investigated alleged irregularities in the tendering and procurement processes and weaknesses in the corporate governance of the project in the period 1999 to the summer of 2000. These allegations make disturbing reading.
	"That is why in December I set clear conditions that this project had to be cleansed before any further commitment from the Government. But I believe it is important that they are now considered in the context of progress since my Statement to the House of 19th December.
	"These four conditions were: a full value-for-money assessment of the construction agreement to be undertaken by an independent assessor; that WNSL supply a copy of the James report to the National Audit Office; that significant changes be made to corporate governance; and that legally binding agreements for the financing of the stadium be concluded. I do not believe that there have been any new disclosures which add to the concerns previously identified.
	"It is important to note that the David James report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety. It did not recommend retendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. So the most important question to be answered was whether the flaws identified had irrevocably damaged the project on grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. The expert judgment suggests they have not.
	"In December, I asked both the FA and WNSL to publish the James-BLP report. However, for legal reasons WNSL felt unable to publish it. A publishable version has finally seen the light of day. Much of this is history, but history from which we must learn. Changes have been made, particularly since December. I wish now to look to the future.
	"In many ways, there has been as much improvement in the past five months as in the previous five years. Three conditions—assessment of value for money; the consideration of the relevant papers by the NAO; and the strengthening of project management and corporate governance—have broadly been met.
	"I will not repeat what I said on those matters just two weeks ago, except to say that the Sweett report, the independent value-for-money assessment, is now in the Library of the House of Commons for any who wish to read the detail.
	"It confirms that it is unlikely that retendering of the construction contracts would result in significant savings. However, I do wish to bring Members up to date on the question of financing.
	"On 7th May, I informed the House that the lead bank had agreed in outline to proceed. The FA has since said that it expects to sign a 'heads of agreement' and exclusive mandate with WestLB, the lead bank, in the next seven days which will agree the overall financial structure of the project. It has said that it will then expect to complete all the financial contracts some time within the next 10 weeks.
	"The bank is satisfied that it has access to all the information it requires, including the James and Tropus reports. The prospects are good, progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain. Accordingly, I will not give final approval on the Government's contribution to non-stadium infrastructure until a final report has been produced by Patrick Carter, after proper banking arrangements have been concluded and assessed.
	"I am clear—as indeed is the Football Association—that the current negotiations represent the last chance for Wembley. Should a Wembley deal not prove possible, I would expect—as I indicated in December and ever since—that the FA would enter into discussions with Birmingham over its proposals.
	"The FA has repeated its assurances that if Wembley fails to proceed, then it would look for other options; options which would include Birmingham.
	"Birmingham's bid was and is credible. It has been examined by Patrick Carter and by the FA in good faith. However, the Carter report supports the view that Wembley would deliver higher revenues, hence the FA's declared preference. And the Birmingham bid is still only embryonic: planning permission for what is a green belt site has not been given; the detailed design has not be completed; final costings for the stadium have yet to be done; the business plan has not yet been thoroughly tested or backed by market research; and there remains a significant funding gap to be bridged. So moving the project to Birmingham is not a straightforward process with a guarantee of success. But if Wembley fails, Birmingham deserves the chance to make its case.
	"I now want to clear one matter up. Some have mistakenly assumed that there is a secret agreement between the FA and Sport England to reopen the old Wembley stadium if the new project fails. This is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the staging agreement between Sport England and the FA. It is the security obtained by Sport England for the £120 million lottery grant. It could, in theory, allow Sport England to require the FA to stage events at Wembley for 20 years in the event of the project failing.
	"In reality, the stadium would be very expensive to reopen, and would be increasingly substandard as a venue. The Carter report indicates that it would cost around £40 million for a quick fix to open the doors—a solution which would require a second, major refurbishment only five years later, costing tens of millions of pounds more.
	"The FA made clear in its statement yesterday that reopening the stadium is only one of the options that might be available in the event of a failure to proceed with the new stadium. And given the cost, it is an unlikely option for the FA to choose. However, it is for Sport England and the FA to decide how, in the event of the project failing, the grant is repaid.
	"I come now to my last point. Hindsight shows what a high-risk project this was. Lottery money is not about risk avoidance, though. It should be about risk management; and I accept that more work needs to be done with distributors on risk assessment.
	"One possible solution is to involve the Office of Government Commerce in all high-risk lottery projects, to ensure full scrutiny of proposals before their approval. This has now been done on Wembley, and the OGC's report, in the light of changes made and proposed, supports the stadium plans. I intend to include this issue in the forthcoming consultation on the future of lottery distribution which I hope to bring before the House before the Summer Recess. It is important for the future of the lottery to get this issue right.
	"One year ago, this project was flawed, tainted and unsustainable. Since then, the efforts of the FA and other stakeholders, working with Patrick Carter and his team, have yielded results in governance, transparency and the potential to attract financial support to a much more credible project.
	"The money sought from government is still on the table. It forms part of the financial package and it will remain there while the present negotiations with the bank continue to progress to conclusion.
	"There is some distance still to travel; and if my four conditions are met in full, the House can be assured that government support is being given to a project that will have demonstrated that it deserves it—a project that will benefit sport in England at all levels for generations".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We seem to be stuck in the nightmare of the film "Groundhog Day"—another day, and we simply cannot escape from the same thing happening again and again, without resolution. For the sake of our sportsmen and sportswomen, we must break free and settle the matter.
	The Minister stated that she is awaiting a final report from Patrick Carter, and that the FA has told the Government that it expects to complete the financial contracts some time within the next 10 weeks. I noted carefully what the Minister said. There was no mention of a deadline this time. Why is that? After all, by my reckoning, 10 weeks will take us to 1st August—after, as we all hope, the House has risen for the Summer Recess. Will the Minister give an undertaking that she will return to the House before the Summer Recess to give an account of progress on the specific matter of Wembley? The Minister referred to progress on lottery resolution. Will she please also give an undertaking to report on progress on Wembley?
	The financial details of this deal have become a byword for fiasco. That pleases no one in this country. The Minister referred to the Tropus report, which revealed irregularities in the procurement processes. When did that report first reach the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? When was it first read, if at all, by Ministers?
	What is the Government's response to the Football Association's statement to the Select Committee of another place this week that the Government should have been aware of the Tropus report last summer because they were in touch all the time with David James and he knew of its remit and likely contents? It was also stated that there was a pervasive awareness of allegations of impropriety in procurement matters.
	The Minister stated that she did not believe that there had been any new disclosures to add to the concerns previously identified. What about the revelation this week of the "staging agreement" between the FA and Sport England? This means that if the current bid to build a new stadium at Wembley breaks down, the old stadium must be taken out of mothballs and used for football international matches and FA Cup matches for the next 20 years, so that the £120 million of lottery money can be repaid. It is a simple guarantee to Sport England.
	That was certainly a new disclosure to me, and to most of the country apart from the favoured few. Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State admitted to the Select Committee of another place earlier today that she was one of the favoured few and did have prior knowledge of the staging agreement?
	The Minister tries to make light of the agreement; but does it not fatally damage the hopes of Birmingham or Coventry that they could ever genuinely be considered as a venue for the national stadium?
	After all, the staging agreement is a contractual term. It is not for the FA to choose whether it keeps to it or not. Sport England is a contractor to the agreement too. So, if the Government are so confident that there is a way out of this impasse, why is that the case? Have the Government sought, and received, from Sport England a guarantee that they would not enforce the staging agreement if the negotiations for a stadium at Wembley were, God forbid, to fail? Does the Minister realise that, without that, her warm words about Birmingham and Coventry mean nothing?
	Finally, is the Minister aware that in the Select Committee of another place earlier today the Secretary of State admitted that she knew that there were weaknesses in Sport England's oversight of all these processes? What meetings have the Government held with Sport England since the Statement made in this place in December last year to call Sport England to account for its handling—or mishandling—of the lottery agreement, of public money?
	It is vital that this matter is resolved swiftly and effectively. Our sportsmen and sportswomen, and the whole country, deserve that.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which she read so expertly. In so doing, she concealed the alarm that it has caused me and, I imagine, other Members of this House.
	When I arrived this morning, I was told by my Whips' Office that it was of a mind to refuse the Statement and thought that the Conservative Benches would refuse it too. It was almost like being told, if one were eagerly awaiting a sequel to "Four Weddings and a Funeral", that it had suddenly been withdrawn—I do not want to associate the word "funeral" with this particular project, but the noble Baroness will take my point.
	The project is in a terrible mess. Most of the media and the press share that view. To use another motion picture analogy, there is a certain amount of speaking with forked tongue in the Statement. As we all know, and as any member of the public knows now, if we are entering into a project such as a national stadium, there needs to be full and whole-hearted commitment by government to support it. There never has been that commitment. The Government, however, have involved themselves for the very reasons given in the Statement. This type of project, whether it be a national stadium or a national football stadium—which is what it is—needs government support in some shape or form in order for it to succeed.
	The problem is that when the project got into difficulty, the Government sought to tell us that it was nothing whatever to do with them. The Government say that it is a matter of commercial agreements between various parties. We were told that some weeks ago by means of the David Frost show on national television. When it comes down to it, however, the Government are very much involved. After all, they have committed a great amount of public money—lottery funding to the tune of £120 million, to be precise—to the project. As for the future of that, I would not blame anyone for being nervous about reports that lottery funding of the millennium fiasco is unlikely to be recovered. We hope that the same will not apply in relation to this project.
	Some of the remarks in the Statement are extraordinary. The Government say, for example, that we have learned lessons. However, this is not the stage at which we should be learning lessons. We should be teaching lessons, not learning them. The Statement also says that the Football Association wants a national stadium. It does not want a national stadium; it wants a football stadium. The sooner we stop talking in these terms, the better it will be. It is a football stadium for which a type of enlarged Lego project—to add a running track and so on—has been discussed ad nauseam, with the enormous costs and problems attached to that.
	The Statement makes the extraordinary claim that the prospects are good, progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain. From my modest career in commerce, that is certainly no basis on which to encourage investors to invest. That is a point on which I have questioned the Minister when we have previously discussed these matters. If she is of a mind to answer my question, or those of other noble Lords who may speak later, I hope that she will not tell us that certain aspects are "commercially sensitive", because that just will not do. We have not been told anything concrete about the project's potential for revenue earning although such potential is vital for funding.
	It has been bandied about that the facility will be used for 20 days of the year. Anyone with a cigarette packet and a pencil can work out the fact that it will be very hard for a stadium costing such sums but used for only 20, 40 or even 60 days of the year to produce a cashflow projection that will inspire any confidence in those minded to invest. We have had no serious and encouraging remarks from the Government about that. All they say is that, "This is a contract between two, three or four commercial bodies and they must get on with it. We are there only to protect the public funds, the lottery funds, involved in this".
	This is very unsatisfactory. It is procrastination which has been forced on the Government. The Government have prolonged the deadline for the conversations to continue. The Minister has now told us quite clearly that there is probably no truth in the fact that, if this fails, the Football Association will want to continue with Wembley in the future. However, I am quite sure that there are sensible people in the Football Association, although one begins to doubt it.
	Wembley is like the London Zoo in many ways. I have enjoyed many happy days at Wembley, for boxing matches and football. I was at the 1966 World Cup. I have a great affection for Wembley. I also have a great affection for the London Zoo, where I used to watch polar bears. However, it is all out of date. There is no way in which Wembley can be either a national stadium or a national football stadium.
	I do not come from Birmingham, but I have a great feeling of support for Birmingham. I also see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on the edge of his seat, ready to tell us what he thinks. I do not know whether Birmingham's plan is well shaped and well formed and ready to go or what difficulties might exist, but Wembley is an obvious alternative. It is only fair to the Birmingham people that they should be told now the likelihood of success. They should not be strung out for months upon months with the promise that there is a deadline and that Birmingham will have a fair crack of the whip if the deadline is not met.
	What a sad Statement. In fact, it is a classic. I shall stick it up on the wall somewhere in my house, together with some other extraordinary things that have happened in the House and with which I have been involved, although I am not sure where. No one will understand it. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for their comments and questions. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has had so many enjoyable trips to Wembley as well as the London Zoo. I hope that he has more enjoyable trips to Wembley in the future if this project comes off. It will be a rather different experience from going to the London Zoo.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why there was no mention of a deadline. Perhaps I should remind her that the 30th April deadline was not a government deadline but a deadline provided by the FA. It has failed to meet that deadline because it has not been able to complete its commercial—I underline commercial—negotiations with those who are financing the project. I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to impose a further deadline at this stage. The FA has made it clear, as I have made it clear in the Statement, that it hopes that it will be able to complete its negotiations within 10 weeks.
	The noble Baroness then asked whether I would give an undertaking to return to the House before the Summer Recess. Clearly I cannot give any such undertaking. However, I shall certainly pass on what she has said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
	The noble Baroness then asked about the Tropus report, and whether any new disclosures have been made in relation to the staging report. I shall start with Tropus. Tropus produced a dossier containing a series of allegations about the procurement and corporate governance procedures in WNSL. These issues were aired with Patrick Carter and his independent review team in discussions about the viability of alternative options for the national stadium. WNSL responded very quickly to those allegations and appointed David James to carry out a full independent review of the main concerns.
	The James report is a very thorough investigation of the main Tropus allegations. On receipt of the report, we responded decisively by setting out the four conditions which I made clear in the Statement. As David Hudson of Tropus said on Tuesday, the James report showed that the position was worse than we had thought. We have now reviewed the Tropus dossier. We are satisfied that there are no issues that have not been covered by the comprehensive changes that WNSL and the FA have agreed to make to their procurement and corporate governance procedures.
	I turn now to the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the staging agreement. It might be helpful and clarify matters if I read out a letter sent by the FA chief executive, Adam Crozier, to the project director in Birmingham. Before doing so, however, I shall read to the noble Baroness what was said in a statement made by Adam Crozier earlier this week. It states:
	"All parties have recognised that in the event that the Birmingham proposals were to be considered and proved viable it would be necessary to conclude an event staging agreement in relation to the new Stadium once current legal commitments relating to the National Stadium project at Wembley had been concluded in a way that satisfied all parties".
	In his letter to Paul Spooner in Birmingham, he wrote:
	"as far as The FA is concerned, Birmingham would remain an option for the national stadium should the new Wembley not proceed. As has always been the case, this would of course be subject to discussions by all the stakeholders on how best to abort the current project and any agreements relating to it".
	I am very clear, therefore, that Birmingham has not been misled by either the Carter review team, government or the FA.
	The noble Baroness also suggested that this was some secret agreement. I hope that I may put her right on that. There is nothing secret about it. Indeed, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was told about the staging agreement some two years ago in 2000.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place broadly welcomed the Statement by the Secretary of State and said that it was only sensible to delay a little longer to see whether the Football Association could sign the heads of agreement with its financial backers? That is in complete contrast to the rather rambling statement made by the noble Viscount a few minutes ago. Does my noble friend also agree that the approach that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the DCMS team have adopted is in marked contrast to what happened prior to December last year? The use of the words "flawed", "tainted" and "unsustainable" which I noted down from the Statement I think describe everything that went wrong. I refer also to the words "high risk" and "high risk project". The ministerial team, as well as everyone else who was involved in the project up until the general election, are no longer in post and certainly the fiasco over Wembley had a large part to play in that.
	However, since the Secretary of State took a grip on the matter in December and demanded answers to the four questions, it seems to me that all reasonable people would—like the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Commons—want to give the Football Association the opportunity to see whether these matters can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion and that their choice, and the choice of most people in this country, that Wembley should be the site of the national stadium, should be implemented.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing up the differences between what was said by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman in the House of Commons and by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman in this House. I am sure that they will meet to discuss their slight differences in tone as regards the relative welcome given to the Statement in another place and the remarks made in this House.
	That gives me an opportunity to pick up a matter that I perhaps should have mentioned when responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He suggested that we had not been told enough about revenue from the project. He poured scorn on the suggestion that this was a commercial matter. I profoundly disagree with his view that this is not a commercial deal between private sector banks and the Football Association.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, I said no such thing. Of course it is a commercial matter. All I said was that the Government have said that they do not think that it is right for them to be directly involved in the issue because it is a commercial matter. Their only concern is to protect public funds. That is all that I said.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is exactly the position of the Government and that must be right. Were we to start to intervene in every commercial deal that was carried out all over the country, many people would start to jump up and down and would have something to say about that.
	I hope that I may put the noble Viscount right on one other matter. He said that the business plan is predicated on around 20 sports events and six other events. The business plan has been market tested by independent consultants and is going through a process of due diligence. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Viscount; it is designed to be so.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has already reminded us of the statement made by, I believe, the company secretary of the Football Association to the House of Commons committee earlier this week as regards the binding agreement made with Sport England in 1998 that there would be football at Wembley for the next 20 years. The Minister has already quoted one letter that Adam Crozier wrote to the Birmingham bid team, but I hope that I may remind her of another. Perhaps she does not read the local press as I do and did not read the Birmingham Post this morning which quotes a letter from Adam Crozier to the Birmingham team. The letter is dated July 2001—that is three years after the agreement was reached with Sport England. The letter states:
	"In order to be completely open with you—
	think of those words—
	"can I let you know exactly where we are in the process. Effectively, we have three options going forward:
	1. The current design proposal for a 90,000 stadium at Wembley,
	2. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Wembley,
	3. A new 80,000/85,000 design in Birmingham".
	There is nothing there about Birmingham being a fallback when everything else has fallen behind. Mr Crozier says that he is being open in outlining the three options when behind his back, three years before, an agreement was reached with Sport England. How does the Minister reconcile those two statements? Does she suppose that the chief executive and the company secretary actually talk to each other?
	Furthermore, what view does the Minister take of the fact that in the light of that letter stating that Birmingham, along with others, is an open option, the Birmingham and Solihull bid team has spent half a million pounds to produce its bid when all the time an agreement had been made with Sport England that there would be football at Wembley for the next 20 years? Has the FA some liability to reimburse that expenditure? That is a serious question. I refer also to reimbursement of the costs of the Coventry bid.
	The Minister also mentioned planning. It is worth reflecting that the planning authority is one of the authorities that is behind the bid. I suspect that its own planners must have considered it.
	It is also worth reflecting on the fact that the city and business community of Birmingham has a proven record in completing projects on time, within budget and without compromising the project in hand. I think particularly of the very important Millennium Point which was opened last year as part of the regeneration of the east side of Birmingham city centre. That matter needs to be considered.
	Does the Minister appreciate that in the light of all of that the people of Birmingham, Solihull and the West Midlands have little remaining faith in the integrity or competence of the Football Association?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his interest in the project. I understand that this may be the last occasion on which he is able to ask questions in your Lordships' House before he retires. I wish him a happy retirement.
	I turn to his questions. I shall start by referring to the staging agreement. There is much misunderstanding about the nature of that agreement. As I said before, the agreement concerns a guarantee that events will take place if funding is provided, whether public or private. Exactly the same kind of staging agreement would occur were Birmingham to be the bidder. The right reverend Prelate should not read into the matter some plot to undermine the Birmingham bid, far from it.
	The right reverend Prelate also asked whether the Football Association ought to reimburse those cities which submitted bids for the stadium project. I believe that when any city or part of the country decides to submit a bid for a project of this kind, so long as they have been treated fairly as regards the whole approach to the competition, there is absolutely no reason why they should or could be reimbursed. This is a competition and there are some winners and some losers.
	On the point about planning authorities, Birmingham was originally turned down in 1995 partly because Solihull district council said that it would not give a planning agreement. It may have changed its mind—

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, Solihull and Birmingham are behind the bid together.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, during the early stages of the competition, when the FA decided to reject Birmingham, I have it on good authority—I shall check again and write to the right reverend Prelate if I am wrong—that Solihull district council could not support a planning application because a greenfield site in green-belt land was involved. If it has now changed its mind, there are virtually bound to be objections to a decision to locate in a green-belt area, which would mean that the project would have to be called in and a planning inquiry would take place. That would certainly delay the project in Birmingham.
	While I am on my feet, I should add that, as I made clear in the Statement, many other problems would have to be resolved before the Birmingham project could go ahead.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when Wembley was created for the Great Exhibition in 1924, the nation felt pride and was given a great uplift? For the following 75 or more years it has proved to be a focal point for football and other activities and, in terms of football, has been the envy of the world. I should declare an interest as an Arsenal supporter, because my team plays there so often in cup finals! Wembley Stadium as it currently is needs either pulling down and rebuilding or drastic refurbishment. People who used it in recent years have been ripped off because of the appalling conditions that they had to endure while watching games.
	I add that the siting of a national football stadium at Wembley would benefit from the infrastructure that already exists, although it would of course need to be improved. The arrangements have been in place for a number of years—there are excellent transport arrangements. London Transport has done a wonderful job clearing Wembley Park station of 70,000 to 80,000 people very quickly.
	I ask the Minister to do one thing: to get on with it. The people—or most of the football supporters—of this country want an answer. I wish the people of Birmingham good fortune if Wembley should not prove to be a viable proposition. The main thing that the people—that is, the footballing people—of this country currently want is some action. This issue has gone on for far too long. Will the Minister put her elbow behind this and get Wembley refurbished or rebuilt, or make a decision and take the project elsewhere?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not around in 1924 to celebrate the building of Wembley but I agree with my noble friend that it served its purpose for a very long time. As the noble Viscount said, people have had many enjoyable experiences watching matches and other events at Wembley. However, conditions worsened, the infrastructure started to collapse and it was right to start thinking about a new national stadium for football and rugby league—and, we now hope, for athletics, too.
	My noble friend and I support the same football team. I hope that I shall join him at some point at a cup final to see our team playing and winning in the refurbished Wembley. I am sure that he is right to say that the people absolutely want a new national stadium. If the Wembley bid goes through and meets all of the conditions that we have set, no one will be more delighted than me. At the same time, I make it clear that the choice of Wembley is a matter for the FA. If it fails, Birmingham will be considered.

Lord Coe: My Lords, in her Statement, the Minister properly referred to the protection of the public and the use of the £120 million of lottery money. She will be aware that that sum was given on the basis that the stadium could properly house football, rugby league and athletics. There has already been talk about a facility costing nearly £12 million to raise a demountable track and we are told that the time involved will be some 17 weeks. Given that the stadium would be out of use for nearly 17 weeks, does she genuinely think that the stadium will be "athletics compliant" and that there is any incentive for the future owners of Wembley to bid for the World Athletics Championships? She will also be aware that we lost a World Athletics Championships last year. At the time, her department announced a study by the PIU into future strategies to attract such sporting events to these shores. Will she give the House an update on the progress that has been made and tell us when we are likely to be able to deliberate on its findings?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is absolutely right about the importance of protecting the £120 million. I am sure that he will have seen the Sport England report that makes it clear that it is possible for an athletics platform to be put into the new stadium at considerably lower cost than would have been the case under the original concrete plans and that it can be installed and removed much more quickly.
	With around 30 events a year, there should be no problem for those running the new national stadium to plan ahead for a major international athletics meeting. As the noble Lord knows very well, we are not of course talking about frequent athletics meetings—we could use Birmingham, Sheffield and Crystal Palace for national events. We are talking about the occasional international event of major importance. We should now celebrate the fact that we will at last have an international as well as a national location for athletics if the project comes off.
	The noble Lord also asked about the PIU. The PIU project team will develop an overall strategy for guiding the Government's decisions on sports policy, including major events of the kind to which he referred. We expect the project to be completed in the summer.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which was honest, clear and rightly self-critical. I do not think that anyone could possibly claim that this project had been smoothly managed. However, we must face the fact that we are where we are. I suspect that there have been far too many deadlines and misleading headlines.
	Would the Minister be so kind as to confirm two basic principles about the project? First, will she confirm that the FA is funding the project and that Wembley is its preferred venue? The FA has said that perfectly clearly and it is negotiating with banks in order to achieve that end. Secondly, will she confirm that there will be no additional government funding, apart from the funding that has already been stipulated—the £20 million that has already been earmarked for the infrastructure? That has been said many times but people have clearly not taken that on board. That is a very important point for those who are watching this debate very carefully.
	It is now possible that we have but 10 weeks before completion. It would be a tragedy if we drew back at this moment. That point was made clearly in the other place this morning by a Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I hope that the House will give a ringing endorsement to the proposal that Wembley is the preferred option. The sooner that that is achieved, the better; if that is done, the sports lovers of this country will be best pleased.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks. I confirm that the project is being funded by the Football Association and that Wembley is the association's preferred venue and choice. I can say absolutely categorically that there will be no additional government funding, over and above the £20 million that is still on the table for infrastructure improvement, to ensure that people can travel between Wembley, London and points farther afield. I am grateful to my noble friend for her general comments on the Statement.
	Of relevance to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—who I see shaking her head—is that David Moffett, the relatively new chief executive of Sport England, told the Select Committee in another place that Sport England's handling of the project could have been better. We ought to recognise a willingness to concede that the matter might have been handled more effectively. We should be grateful to Mr Moffett for that.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 202:
	After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
	"APPEALS PURSUANT TO DECISIONS OF THE ADJUDICATOR
	In section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (adjudicators) there shall be inserted—
	"(5) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a body to hear appeals pursuant to decisions of the adjudicator.""

Baroness Blatch: The amendment poses the question whether an original jurisdiction should be allowed to exist, with no room for appeal—except by judicial review on procedural grounds only. It raises also the technical question of whether Section 86(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 makes it possible for the adjudicator to treat entry to a test as an expression of preference for a school.
	We all know that organisation committees and adjudicators were set up to allow the Secretary of State to pass to an elected, unaccountable body the responsibility for making decisions that are tiresome for a Secretary of State, including the merging or closing of schools and the alteration of school structures at local level. That development wrote out of the loop the responsibility of local education authorities and put such decisions at arm's length from the Secretary of State. The most significant deficit is that parents, school communities and schools themselves are in no position to counter the adjudicators' absolute power.
	If, when an organisation committee receives a proposal written in the organisational plan, one sector of the committee takes a different view, the proposal automatically goes to the adjudicator for determination. The adjudicator can uphold the majority or minority view, alter the proposition or substitute a wholly different decision. There is absolutely no appeal to the adjudicator. We and members on the Liberal Democrat Benches were extremely disquieted by the advent of organisation committees and adjudicators because they were unelected and unaccountable and adjudicators were given absolute power.
	At least one adjudicator has already been taken to the courts and found wanting because he had exceeded his powers. The Government's answer was to extend the adjudicators' powers—so if the same decision were made today, it would not be against the law. It certainly would be against the interests of people locally and of schools.
	The Government argued that committees and adjudicators would bring decision making closer to the people. Anyone who has examined the areas for which adjudicators are responsible will know that they are extremely wide—they extend far beyond local authority areas. In my area of Cambridgeshire and East Anglia, the adjudicator could not possibly know all the nursery, primary and secondary schools in Cambridgeshire because that individual is responsible for several county areas—yet that one person has absolute power.
	Different adjudicators have different ways of working. There ought to be a test of fair process—not just correct process, in terms of judicial review. As I said, the only recourse open to a school community or parent body is to make an adjudication the subject of judicial review on the basis of process only, not its merits or demerits. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	My preference would be to see adjudicators removed from the 1998 Act, but if we must live with that unaccountable aspect of local decision-making, there ought to be a process of appeal. If the Minister argues that there was not previously the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, that is not true. There was a system of review and judicial review. Those of us with experience of local authorities, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, know that they had to make judgments about the number of places available; and took views on mergers, closures and additional schools. Such propositions were considered at working party level and there would be road shows, talks to local communities; and discussions with governors, parents, and parish and district councils.
	After the working party, a proposal would go before the primary and secondary sub-committees and the county council. Then the decision would go to the Secretary of State. If there was concern about a proposal before it reached the Secretary of State, parents could approach the Secretary of State—himself an elected individual—through their Members of Parliament and make their input. The people who submitted the proposal in the first place and the individual decision-maker were elected.
	The Government should be generous with the amendment and at least allow appeals to the all-powerful, all-pervasive adjudicators. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I underline what my noble friend said. Since the end of the 19th century, it has been a tradition in this country that local authorities should play a prominent part in education, in particular in relation to the more delicate situations, such as school closures and entry problems. It is a fairly novel development in English education for that role to be handed over to an official appointed as a result of patronage. As my noble friend pointed out, one can escape that only by judicial review. But judicial review is an enormously expensive process. It is possible that large local authorities could afford it, but schools and parents could not unless they had a large amount of money.
	In addition, adjudicators have not always been as careful as they might be. For example, in Kent, when they considered the matter of choice of schools after someone had tried to get into a grammar school, the adjudicators did not consult the grammar schools in the county. Another adjudicator subsequently altered the decision of his predecessor. That was a messy situation and, had the county been able to afford it, it would certainly have made mincemeat of the Government at a judicial review.
	I do not understand why the Government cannot allow appeals. We all know why the situation occurred. The Secretary of State did not want angry parents or angry local authorities on his doorstep. The best way to avoid that was to appoint, in the French Napoleonic manner, an official who would do the work for him, and not allow appeals. That is a denial of democracy, and a Government who care about the people should do something about it.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Minister replies to the amendment, I believe that part of the problem with this debate and our other Committee stage debates is that we have been unclear as to precisely what the Government intend for the future of local education authorities. Because of that, I believe that, throughout the Bill, a whole series of initiatives are being taken to put in place what are almost substitutes for local education authorities. We have not had a clear view from the Government as to whether, in the long term, effectively they wish to make all schools independent, with no local education authorities at all. Thus, I believe that we are getting the worst of all worlds. From the number of letters and representations that I have received from people involved in local education authorities, the provisions that the Government seek to introduce are certainly perceived in that way. If that is not the intention of the Bill and if that is not the long-term intention of the Government, I believe that it would be helpful for the Government to put that on the record.
	I also believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that parents will be looking for a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just said, to ensure that, where there is dispute, a fair and proper means of resolving it exists.
	Another theme that has run through our debates is that we should do nothing to dissipate accountability. Local education authorities may have their failings—I was a member of one for many years. Nevertheless, they have virtue because they contain an elected element—most of their members are directly elected local councillors. I believe that the more we diminish their powers, the less people will be prepared to serve on such bodies and, even if it is not the intention of the Government to abolish them, they will simply wither away.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is an interesting way to start this Committee day. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving me the opportunity to talk about local education authorities. There is no question but that local education authorities provide an invaluable role within our school education system. This Government have no intention of seeing them disappear.
	We are trying to ensure that we develop our relationship with schools and local education authorities so that each performs the duties, responsibilities and functions most appropriate to them. That means enabling schools to have control over their own budgets, and allowing them to grow and develop for their community. It means ensuring that local education authorities play a strategic role, and it also means that the Department for Education and Skills and, of course, the Secretary of State, have a responsibility and a duty to all our children and all our schools. I set the Bill within that context. We are trying to ensure that each plays the part that we consider to be appropriate and valuable. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord because I know that there are issues to be teased out and debates to be had.
	Perhaps, for Members of the Committee who are less familiar with it, I may say something about the role of the adjudicator in general. The adjudicator has two different roles: one is concerned with admissions; the other with school organisation. The first concerns determining objections to admission arrangements. In a sense, therefore, it is an appeal role. With regard to school organisation, the adjudicator determines school organisation plans and proposals where there is no unanimity on the school organisation committee.
	Of course, these issues were all debated in the School Standards and Framework Act before I had the pleasure of being part of your Lordships' House. It is my view that the adjudicator process is working in practice. Fundamentally, it is the appeal process.
	I believe that the Government are in a type of "cannot win" situation. If we said to the noble Baroness that we would take the view that the adjudicator role was not working and that we would return to the previous position, that would be a centralisation process. It would place decisions firmly back in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is not what we wish to do. We believe that such decisions are best left to an independent adjudicator. He is appointed by the Secretary of State but on the basis of his educational expertise. Members of the Committee will be able to see that process in terms of the people who have been appointed and who, rightly, we are proud to have in that role.
	Therefore, we believe that adjudicators are independent. We believe that they should, and can be, challenged through judicial review. That process is open to those who wish to follow it. That would affect not only the cases about which Members of the Committee may be concerned; it would also affect adjudicator decisions allowing mid-year variations to admission arrangements and school organisation decisions.
	We believe that adjudicators provide an independent mechanism. They work on a good timescale. Our objective is that decisions should be reached within six weeks. The process takes longer when objections are put forward, in particular, during the school summer holiday period. However, even in those cases, on average decisions have been reached in fewer than 10 weeks. We believe that the adjudicator performs the role of the appeals process and that, therefore, the provision should stand. We hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that this does not bode badly for the rest of the day. That was the most disappointing answer that I have had. The noble Baroness said that there is no question that LEAs are threatened, but I need some convincing of that. We have learning and skills councils, national learning and skills councils, organisation committees and adjudicators. Sixth-form funding is about to be removed from local authorities. We also have sector skills councils and national sector skills councils, most of which are now regionally based.
	The subject of county councils was brought up in a Statement the other day. There is no question that county councils—predominantly those who are responsible for the decisions that we are discussing today—look very vulnerable. That certainly came out in the debate. The Minister who replied to the Statement gave no comfort whatever to this House that county councils would be safe in the future. If one removes local education authorities from county councils, there will be almost nothing left. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness that her answer on that point was less than convincing. Certainly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made is well taken in that respect.
	The noble Baroness also went on to say that fundamentally we have an appeals process. The point that I made was not picked up by the noble Baroness. Once the organisation committee has considered the proposition but one vote on that committee has disagreed with it, the adjudicator can uphold the majority decision that has been considered; or he or she can uphold the minority decision that has been considered; or he or she can modify and alter the proposition; but under the law he or she is free to substitute a decision that has not been considered. How can such a situation be democratic? If one person can take a decision, which has not had full consideration by such bodies as the local authority upwards, how can that be democratic?
	The noble Baroness considered that it was something of a virtue that such decisions can be made in six weeks. I have been involved in making recommendations to Secretaries of State in relation to decisions on possible school closures, and those who experience the pain of such decisions would like to believe that it would take more than six weeks to consider all the representations and all the aspects of a decision. To boast that all that can take place in six weeks is no answer. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 93.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 202A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Schedule 4 [Admission arrangements]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 203:
	Page 133, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (3)(c) there is inserted "; or
	(d) if the child has been identified upon an assessment requested by the head teacher of the school as having significant emotional and behavioural difficulties and the local education authority responsible for maintaining the school is unwilling or unable to provide to the school such resources as may reasonably be considered appropriate to meet the needs of the child""

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of Amendment No. 203 is to ensure that schools have adequate resources to support pupils with significant emotional and behavioural difficulties. Schools cannot be expected to know whether they have the appropriate resources unless they know the full nature and extent of the problem. That is why this amendment proposes that head teachers have the right to refer pupils for an assessment prior to admission to a school if they have reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a serious problem. Therefore, the amendment seeks to amend the Schools Standards and Framework Act to that effect. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We have already in place, as noble Lords are aware, a system for assessing and supporting children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, through the special educational needs framework. The special educational needs code of practice for England and Wales sets out a systematic process for schools to identify and to provide for children's special educational needs in school.
	With reference to children with challenging behaviour, the school admissions code of practice makes it clear that admission authorities should not make subjective judgments as to the suitability of children for a school. Of course, if the pupil, once admitted, is seriously and persistently disruptive, the school may take appropriate disciplinary action, including temporary and, ultimately, permanent exclusion from the school.
	We want education to be as inclusive as possible and the admissions code makes clear that children with special educational needs, but without statements, must be treated as fairly as other applicants. Admission authorities may not refuse admission simply because they consider themselves unable to cater for his or her special educational needs. Nor can they refuse to admit such a pupil on the grounds that he or she does not have a statement or is currently being assessed for one. It is not acceptable for a school to refuse to admit a child merely because he or she has exhibited potentially challenging behaviour or because it considers that the child should first be assessed for special educational needs.
	We shall require the mandatory admission forums in England to discuss issues relating to the admission of children with challenging behaviour, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. That will enable local admission authorities to agree strategies for their areas in relation to how their admission arrangements might best work to ensure a more even spread and the best possible resource for each child between all their schools.
	In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Minister sits down, figures published today show that 9,000 children have been excluded from schools—a large number of them from primary schools, where there has been an alarming increase in the number of exclusions. Will the Minister agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has a valid point; namely, that before putting children into schools simply to place them at risk of exclusion, we should first consider and address the reasons that such children exhibit emotional and behavioural problems? I welcome the Minister's concluding remarks, but does she agree that we need to give a little more thought to that matter?

Baroness Blatch: My point is related to the noble Lord's. The Minister will be aware that today some very disturbing news has been announced about the dramatic increase in the number of young people in schools who are behaviourally disordered and resort to violence, for which there appears to be no answer. Teachers, especially those who have to deal with older and physically stronger secondary school children, feel unprotected. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right that it is depressing to know that that kind of disruptive and sometimes violent behaviour is now a feature of our primary schools.
	I should like to pose a question to the Minister. We are now almost at the end of the school summer term. As I understand it, a large number of county councils do not presently have full-time education places to offer all the young people who have been excluded. That now is a pledge—nay, even a guarantee—that by the first day of term early in September full-time education will be made available, either in pupil referral units, in learning support units and/or in other forms of provision, for every excluded child, a pledge which many councils cannot at this time honour. That will happen in a matter of weeks. Will the Minister therefore say how that can be achieved in the time remaining between now and the beginning of the new term?

Lord Northbourne: Having been a governor of a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and having provided for their holidays over a number of years, I support this amendment. Not enough is being done by the Government to understand the terrifying reality of these children's problems. Without additional resources, it is unhelpful to place those children in mainstream schools. All they do is damage the mainstream schools. With resources, it may be possible to bring them along in mainstream schools in such a way that they do not need extremely expensive special provision later.

Lord Lucas: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, I do not agree with the amendment. It would not be right for schools to play ping-pong with children. If schools have disputes with local education authorities about the level of provision, they should take up those disputes with the local education authorities and not seek to deprive children of an education while they are resolved.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, should like to seek some clarification from the Minister in her response. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the worrying rise in the number of exclusions that have taken place. Some surprisingly young children have very difficult emotional and behavioural problems, with which teachers find it extraordinarily difficult to cope. Many of those children are excluded from other schools and then allocated to new schools. However, if resources are not in place to cope with those difficulties, they become excluded again, which does them no good whatever. If a head teacher perceives that she and her staff do not have the resources to cope with such children, that poses very real problems. It also raises the question whether admitting children into a school at that point, rather than being able to cope with them, does more harm. I am not sure that on such occasions admissions authorities will be able to help.

Lord Dearing: If I may comment briefly, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that ping-pong should not be played with children. Secondly, referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the issue of resources is immensely important, and the resources are not there. I know how long it takes to get a client statemented, and I suspect that that is linked to the inadequacy of resources for handling these children. It is a growing problem throughout the educational system. The funding of education was one of the crying needs for action highlighted by the Local Government Association. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, the Government must face up to the fundamental problem. If these children are to be placed in normal schools, the schools must be funded properly to cope with them and to give them a good education.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I listened this morning to the Secretary of State for Education speaking on a radio programme about the increase in the number of expulsions. She was not able to reveal the figures at the time, but she made great play of the fact that the situation had changed since 1997 in that there were far more referral units to which expelled children might be sent. Can the Minister give the Committee some detail on the number of expelled children who would be attending referral units? For example, would this option be available to all, or only some of them? Can the noble Baroness say how extensive such units are? Further, can she tell us how many of those excluded children would fall into the category covered by the amendment?

Baroness Andrews: I intervene to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I am well aware of the situation, working, as I do, with many schools. I should declare an interest as the director of a national education charity. One of the most effective ways of dealing with disturbed children and those who are prone to violence and general disaffection has emerged through the provision of learning mentors, classroom assistants, and learning support assistants. They are increasing in number, especially in primary schools, and are able to give the sort of individual attention to which these children respond. Indeed, we shall discuss later a similar amendment relating to children leaving care.
	The support that an individual learning classroom assistant can provide is absolutely vital. Indeed, I have seen the difference that it can make to "school-phobic" children and those whose parents fail to support them. We know that there is a major problem regarding parents who collude in truancy. These assistants are incredibly effective people in primary schools—often very motherly. As I said, the numbers are increasing, though clearly we do not have enough of them; otherwise we would not be in the present position. When searching for individual attention for many of these children both in and out of school, pupil referral units are a last resort choice.

Baroness Blatch: I understand the noble Baroness's point, and I know that schools have welcomed the provision of the 20,000 additional classroom assistants. However, during the period that they have been working in the classroom, the number of permanent exclusions has risen by 11 per cent. There are now more children being excluded than previously. The teachers' unions have drawn attention to the demand on the teacher in the classroom and the disruption to the education of the other children. The unions accept that those exclusions are justified; but, equally, the National Union of Teachers—this links very well with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—argues that:
	"Government must make sure that schools receive the staffing, support and training which is necessary to tackle unacceptable pupil behaviour and that those who are excluded receive the education their needs demand, whether in units or special schools".
	It is a fundamental question. We all know that there is a distinction between wilful naughtiness and disturbed behaviour that arises from other difficulties, such as social or mental problems. Nevertheless, it is a very practical issue for teachers in the classroom.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the Committee for responding too early to the noble Baroness's amendment. I recognise that we have some later amendments that are based specifically around the area of exclusions. I shall attempt to give noble Lords some of the answers, but, obviously, I shall welcome the opportunity to talk in more detail, if appropriate, at a later point.
	It may be useful for me to explain something about the figures that were released this morning, so as to give Members of the Committee an understanding of what is interesting about them, beyond the headlines. There have been an estimated 9,210 permanent exclusions. The word "estimated" is used in these cases, because we still have to confirm some final details with a few LEAs. It is worth comparing them with two figures: in 1996-97, the figure was 12,700; and, last year, the figure was 8,323. Of the latter, noble Lords will probably find most worrying the fact that there has been an increase of around 19 per cent within primary schools, while figures for secondary schools revealed an increase of 10 per cent.
	However, I should draw noble Lords' attention to the decrease of 11 per cent in exclusions in special schools. Noble Lords have often described their concern that children with special educational needs were six-times, or possibly seven-times, more likely to be excluded. However, the figure in respect of statemented children with special educational needs appears to have dropped, as they are now three-times more likely to be excluded. I accept that that is still not on the right side of the equation, but it is an interesting figure. We are thinking most carefully about what that development is really telling us. I also note that the figure for black Caribbean exclusions is down from 46 in every 10,000 to 38 in every 10,000. I hope that those improvements have arisen as a result of new government policy, but I wish to study the situation to see what is happening.
	I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Lucas. We must be most careful about ping-ponging children. Although I paraphrase it, the thrust of this amendment is that some decision would have to be taken about a child's suitability before he or she had even got into the school. That is not the direction in which we want to see education move in this country. However, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about resources. That is an important consideration. We have put £178 million into schools specifically to cover issues arising from behavioural problems. I am the first to say that there is more to be done, but we want to achieve that within a context of an inclusive system in which such children at least get a chance to get through the door of a school, and the chance to prove themselves. Therefore, such resources must be made available to enable schools to work with those children.
	There are 331 pupil referral units at present. They form a very important part of a strategy that is about guaranteeing full-time education. We are working closely with every local education authority. We expect the pledges to be met. There will be full-time education for every excluded child from the beginning of September—a policy of which I am deeply proud. Before we took this route, children who were permanently excluded were often excluded on to the streets. That is an unsatisfactory position from any perspective. We are now ensuring that every child receives full-time education. That is our intention. We are working closely with LEAs in order to achieve that aim. It is not an easy task—indeed, no one would say that it is—but we want to ensure that we complete it.
	Of the children who are excluded, roughly 50 per cent will be in pupil referral units, while others will be placed back in other schools. Sometimes exclusion from one school can lead to reinstatement at a different school. With some support that can make a difference. However, sometimes it is time for the child to move on. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be aware, there are also learning support units within schools, which attempt to ensure that children do not end up on the road to exclusion. They focus quite heavily on children with challenging behaviour, and behavioural problems.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was really searching for early identification. I could not agree more with him. It is very important that our health, education, and social care services work very closely together with our youngest children right the way through the schooling process to ensure that we identify those who have special educational needs, which are often the reason for such behaviour. We must ensure that we give those children and their families the support that they need.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talked about EBD schools. I have been talking to some of the head teachers who are working with children with emotional and behavioural problems. It is interesting that those heads see themselves as part of the continuum of education for such children. The success criteria often used—namely, "How many children can we put back into the mainstream?", or "How many children can we claim as a success?"—will not apply to every child. I want to ensure that the expertise within those schools is made more available to our education system in the broadest possible sense. I am, therefore, considering how those special schools can work more closely with mainstream schools by offering their expertise and experience to our teachers.
	In the light of my full explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for her extended reply to my amendment, and to all the queries that we subsequently raised. Serious problems still remain in this area. On such an occasion as this, it is not a question of the child being excluded; it is a question of a child having been excluded from one school on grounds of emotional and disturbed behaviour being allocated to another school where the head teacher genuinely feels that the school does not have the necessary resources to cope with the situation. It does not do the child any good to go into another school, only to be excluded again.
	There are some real problems to solve. As the Minister said, it is a question of adequate resources being available; and, indeed, of being able to obtain the services of a teaching assistant. I take very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that many of these children are lacking tender loving care. That is what they are looking for. They need someone to give it to them and to provide them with stability in the school.
	Perhaps we shall return to this matter on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 204:
	Page 134, line 14, at end insert—
	"(8) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
	"(10) "Ability" and "aptitude" shall be interpreted to include among selected children those children with special educational needs who require additional support in displaying and developing the relevant ability and aptitude.""

Lord Rix: I rise to move Amendment No. 204 which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. It is somewhat surprisingly grouped with Amendment No. 204A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Listowel. My amendment is about children with special educational needs and/or disability, while his is concerned with children in care. This clearly, in theatrical terms, is a double booking, for both are fighting for the same page and the same line. Surely, there is room for both.
	Last year the Special Education Needs and Disability Act fulfilled many of our ambitions for pupils with special educational needs and disabled children. The emphasis was on education in mainstream settings, while carefully preserving the special school option for those children for whom this is the better option.
	I fear that the important changes secured during the passage of that Act, which makes discrimination in schools illegal, could be threatened by admission arrangements that extend the scope for selection. Many tests by aptitude are indistinguishable from tests of ability. The Sheffield Hallam research, to which the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, have already alluded in a previous debate, also raises concerns about the nature of the tests used to determine aptitude in selection arrangements for specialist schools.
	Some of the tests are very close indeed to tests of general ability. The study states that some of the criteria used are,
	"diverse, largely unaccountable and sometimes obscure".
	Examples of this include:
	"Chosen by the Governors as likely to contribute to the life of the school".
	Clearly, any such criterion might well disadvantage children with special educational needs, who may not be the governors' natural first choice. I find the reassurance by the Government that only a small percentage of specialist schools do use aptitude tests to select pupils is not enough to dissuade me from pursuing this amendment.
	I have a further concern. The ability to select should not lead to the concentration of children with special needs in non-selective schools which are less esteemed and less well resourced. The other concern is that children with special needs who could benefit from a specialist education should not be denied that education because they require extra resources to fulfil their potential.
	If the Minister wishes to offer assurances rather than legislation, I shall of course listen carefully to what she has to say, but, as an actor who lost his trousers on many occasions with comparative ease, I would prefer the belt and braces of regulatory security rather than a bland reassurance that they will not end up around my ankles again. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I support the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I do not know whether I approach it from the right angle, but there are many young people with special educational needs who, with support, can compete and sometimes even surpass their counterparts in mainstream education. For example, when young people go to university there is a raft of available facilities—readers, technology that assists people, walkers, physical adaptations, or whatever. Believing in opportunity for all means that, where the needs of someone with special needs can be met so they stand on a par with those who have been selected by ability and/or aptitude, the door should be open for them. I hope that the noble Lord accepts my angle, but I do believe in the thrust of the amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 204A which stands in my name. It seeks to ensure that local education authorities can place a child in public care in a particular local maintained school. Local education authorities already have a similar power for children with special educational needs.
	Admission forums have many attractions. I welcome the Minister's assurance that they will contain a local authority representative. But the current situation for looked-after children is so poor that more is required.
	The Minister may be concerned that a looked-after child imposed on a school is likely to become aware that he is unwelcome. She may be anxious that that imposition will repeat the child's previous experience of rejection. I am assured, however, that this should not be the case. A responsible local education authority will discuss carefully the placement of a child with the proposed school. Identical arrangements for special educational needs children have not given rise to significant problems.
	Local education authorities need this power to ensure that the better performing schools, sometimes over-subscribed by more than five to one, accept looked-after children.
	The Minister may be concerned also about meeting a placement during the course of the school year. I point out that special educational needs children whose statements are being adjusted and are delayed on their entry, are currently accepted after the start of a school year. I am unaware of any problems arising from that matter. I am told that it is possible for the children of diplomats and senior politicians who arrive in an area in the course of a year to be found a place. It should not be difficult to make space for this relatively small number of children.
	There should always be careful consideration and dialogue between school and local authority before a looked-after child is placed in school. Amendment No. 204A ensures that authorities and carers have the full attention of proposed schools.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I want to speak to both Amendments Nos. 204 and 204A. My name stands to Amendment No. 204 in support of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I echo very much his words. We shall return to this whole issue of aptitude versus ability when we debate city academies and entry into them. On this issue of children with special educational needs I endorse strongly what the noble Lord said about the need for such children to have access to the specialist facilities that are often available.
	I also want to add support to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Looked-after children are in a special situation. They do not have parents to fight for them. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 is entitled "Parental preferences". One needs someone to fight for one. It is very important that these children's interests are looked to and that they are encouraged to take an interest in what they do. We should give them every chance.

Lord Swinfen: I support Amendment No. 204 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. One of the purposes of education is to turn out well-rounded and useful members of society. If we find that a child with special educational needs has an aptitude it should be encouraged and developed. That is particularly so for those with behavioural or emotional problems. Very often those children are very bright. It may well be that they are not being properly stretched. Therefore, if we can find something that interests them and where they can shine, they will take pride in themselves and develop properly and cease to be a nuisance to the country as a whole.

Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may briefly join the debate by offering two examples that exemplify what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke about to express my approval of the amendment. First, years ago I supported a mathematics club in a special needs school in which some gifted young mathematicians invited children from a maintained school to share the maths games that they had developed. One benefit of that was to show children from the maintained school how bright and able were those young children with special needs. Secondly, I have seen the difference that hand-held computers can make to severely handicapped children's access to the curriculum. They have phenomenal abilities—there is nothing wrong with their brainpower; the main difficulty is often their inability to handle a keyboard. We can and should provide such computers, but they come at a cost.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I, too, rise to support Amendment No. 204, moved by my noble friend Lord Rix, for the reasons that have already been advanced. For five years, I worked with children with special needs and one of the last children whom I taught was a young boy who was dying of cystic fibrosis. Many of the children with whom I worked during that period may have had physical disabilities, but they were, as has been said, bright children who just needed the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
	An issue which always perturbed me and still worries me is that some selective schools that are highly esteemed for their academic achievement are some of the worst schools for making proper provision for those who have physical disabilities. That is a key question. If someone is in a wheelchair or has other difficulties with mobility, it becomes impossible to go to some schools where proper provision has not been made for access and so on. I realise that the law has changed in a positive way—I welcome the most recent changes. Nevertheless, we must still encourage such schools to realise that beyond the disability often lies a person of enormous talent. Everything that we can possibly do should be done to encourage such children to fulfil their potential.
	I remember when I was in another place being profoundly affected by a young woman whom I met who had been told that she would be dead by her teens. She was then in her late twenties. She had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She had a classics degree; she had presented the "Same Difference" television programme; she had written poetry; and she was able in every sphere of her life. When I attended her funeral in Bristol, the place was overflowing its capacity with all the people who had so valued and appreciated the contribution that she had made to their lives. From all that has been said, we understand the importance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Rix. I hope that we can go beyond assurances to legislation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed. It is not a case of going beyond assurances; it is simply that we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I want to explain why we think it unnecessary—not that what is being asked for is not important.
	Current legislation already provides children with special educational needs with the protection sought through the amendment. The school admissions code of practice advises that, as far as possible, any arrangements for testing ability or aptitude should be accessible to children with special educational needs and gives examples of how that might be achieved. It also makes clear that children with special educational needs but no statement should be treated as fairly under a school's admission criteria, including its over-subscription criteria, as other applicants.
	Where children with special educational needs, but for whom statements are not maintained, fulfil the criteria to be admitted to a selective maintained school, the school is under a duty under Section 317 of the Education Act 1996 to use its best endeavours to make the provision for which their learning difficulties call. That may include support for any particular aptitudes and abilities that such children may have. The SEN code of practice, to which all maintained schools, including selective schools, must have regard gives guidance on identifying and meeting children's special educational needs.
	I agree with what Members of the Committee have said: children with special educational needs can have the same range of ability as those who do not have special educational needs. As I would expect, the Committee is fully aware of that. Paragraph 8.83 of the SEN code states that local education authorities should not name a maintained school in a statement if the school is selective and the child does not meet the criteria for selection. But if a child with a statement meets those criteria and the school is named in the statement, the governing body will be under the duty imposed by Section 317 to make the provision for which the child's learning difficulties call.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically mentioned those with disabilities. From September, changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will make it unlawful for admission authorities to discriminate against disabled prospective pupils in the terms on which they offer to admit a child or by refusing admission. They will be under a new duty not to treat a disabled prospective pupil less favourably than they treat a non-disabled child, without justification, and to take reasonable steps to ensure that such children are not put at substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled.
	Schools that operate a permitted form of selection will continue to be able to do so but they will be expected to make such reasonable adjustments to their selection arrangements as may be necessary to ensure that disabled prospective pupils are not substantially disadvantaged. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	I turn to Amendment No. 204A. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment. I fully agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we should seek to protect that vulnerable group of children.
	Of course, where a school is not oversubscribed it is in any case under a duty to comply with parental preference—in this case, the corporate parent's preference. Even if the school is full, the local education authority can decide to admit a child who is the subject of a care order to a community or voluntary-controlled school because it is the admission authority. Alternatively, it could direct the governing body of any foundation or voluntary-aided school to admit the child.
	We are, however, aware of the particular needs and difficulties that children in public care and other vulnerable children may have. We will therefore attempt to assist their admission into popular schools in other ways. When we revise the admissions code of practice later in the year to reflect the Bill's changes, we intend—subject of course to consultation—to recommend to all admission authorities that they give looked-after and vulnerable children top priority in their over-subscription criteria and place them at the top of any waiting lists.
	The Committee will be aware that we intend to prescribe in regulations for England that admissions forums must discuss the admission arrangements for vulnerable children, including children in public care. We shall shortly be consulting on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility to consider the issues relating to children in public care and how to ensure that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs by means of local protocols. We also propose through regulations to introduce a requirement that social services should normally be included as a member of the admissions forum and to explain in the admissions code that they should be in attendance for consideration of all aspects of sharing vulnerable children and in-year admissions. I hope that those steps meet the noble Earl's concerns.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the Minister sits down, can she tell the Committee what happens now when a child subject to a care order is excluded from school? Is any special attention given to that child, bearing in mind that, as she acknowledges, such children are vulnerable and do not have parents but only the authority in loco parentis?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The reality is that the situation varies. Local education authorities, who are responsible through the local authority for corporate parenting, would act in loco parentis for those children. However, we know that the educational attainment of such children is extremely low. Although we have set targets, we admit that they are quite low. We want to ensure that we address the needs of such vulnerable children. I said that most of those children have been neglected or abused—that is why they are in public care—and many of them will have additional needs.
	It is important that we consider the new arrangements to ensure that across the country, admissions forums take seriously such children and that we put in place a series of measures to ensure that their educational, pastoral and social welfare is looked after. We know that education is crucial to such children, so we want to do as much as we can. What happens in some areas is better than in others, but the provisions are entirely designed to ensure that we seriously addressed the educational needs of such children.

Lord Rix: I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their support for the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which she assured me that my amendment was not necessary. Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of having a brief quoting all the Acts and guidance, as the Minister did. I shall, therefore, read what was said in Hansard tomorrow, consult my colleagues and decide whether to bring the amendment back on Report.
	I heard the dread words "as far as possible". That seems to me to be the beginning of a cop-out. I am sure that the House will forgive we if I do not seek its view on this occasion. I shall consider the amendment in the light of Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 204A and 205 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 206:
	Page 134, line 25, leave out "by the governing body"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 are technical amendments. I shall speak to both.
	An admissions authority need not, at present, comply with a parent's preference for a school for their child, if the child has been permanently excluded from two or more schools during a period of two years. As the Bill stands, the change made by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 would have the effect that, in certain circumstances, a pupil ought not to be regarded as having been permanently excluded for the purposes of Section 87, even though a direction to reinstate the pupil concerned was not given. Typically, that would happen if the pupil would have been reinstated, had it been practical to do so. An obvious example would be the case of a child who is now too old to be reinstated in the original school.
	In the Bill as drafted, that change will not apply to pupils excluded from a pupil referral unit, who would have been reinstated if it had been practical. The amendment will correct that position, so that the same provision applies to pupil referral units as to schools. The two amendments will extend the definition of "relevant authority" in the revised Section 87(4) to include the definition of a "responsible body" in Clause 49(5), so that those new provisions also apply to pupil referral units. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: If we remove the words "by the governing body" the clause simply says:
	"a review of his exclusion".
	By whom? I am not sure that the Minister covered that point.
	I have another rather rhetorical and slightly cynical point to make. I cannot remember precisely when the Bill was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons, but I know that it has gone through all its stages there and has come this far in this House, and only now are we correcting that error. It is extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to discover it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The effect of removing the words would be as I described. It will make sure that "the relevant authority" referred to in revised Section 87(4) includes the definition of "responsible body".
	The noble Baroness will know well that, when we are dealing with legislation, there will always be issues to which we will need to return. I apologise to the House that we need an amendment, but I am pleased that it will make sure that the position is clear in respect of children in our maintained schools and in the pupil referral units. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for tabling the amendment and accept that it is necessary.

Baroness Blatch: I accept what the Minister has just said. However, my point was that it was not a matter of returning to the point; it has not actually been discussed since the Bill was produced on 4th December. We are correcting a part of the Bill that relates to an issue that has not been discussed. It is not the case that we are returning to the issue; someone has discovered, very late, that there is a mistake in the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I meant that the department would have to return to it, rather than Parliament. We discovered that we needed to correct it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 207:
	Page 134, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
	""the relevant authority" means—
	(a) the responsible body as defined by subsection (5) of section 49 of the Education Act 2002, or
	(b) a panel constituted in accordance with regulations under subsection (3)(c) of that section."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 208:
	Page 135, line 43, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
	"(1) Section 90 of the 1998 Act (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b), for "consulted by the admission authority under section 89(2)" there is substituted "who were, or would but for subsection (2A) of section 89 have been, required to be consulted by the admission authority under subsection (2) of that section".
	(3) In subsection (2), paragraph (c) is omitted."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendment would enable parents to refer to the adjudicator any objections about a school's admissions arrangements, if they believe them to be contrary to the interests of local children and parents. At present, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, admissions authorities—local education authorities for community schools and governing bodies for foundation and voluntary schools—are required to consult other admissions authorities in their area before finalising their admissions arrangements. The consultation is voluntary, but if any admissions authority—the LEA or the school—is of the view that it is disadvantaged by the arrangements, it has the right of appeal to the adjudicator.
	Parents, however, have limited powers of appeal. A group of 10 or more parents may appeal, but only if the school concerned was partially academically selective prior to 1997. Paragraph 2.4 of the policy statement issued as the precursor to the new code of practice on admissions made it clear that the right to object would be extended to allow two or more parents to object to the number of pupils that a school proposed to admit. That does not extend to objections about admissions arrangements. The amendment would enable a group of parents to make such complaints.
	Parents often realise that their children are disadvantaged by the admissions arrangements of local schools only when they make applications. By then, it is too late for appeals to have any effect before the opening of the following school year. Schedule 4 already proposes to extend the right to refer objections to the adjudicator to the governing bodies of community schools. Until now, they had to rely on the LEA to object on their behalf. Although that change is welcome, it does not go far enough.
	The need for such a power is well illustrated by two recent cases. The first concerns the Prendergast School in south London, where parents had, since 1998, complained about the school's practice of interviewing applicants for places. As a foundation school, the school was its own admissions authority, but the code of practice on admissions made it clear that, although the school could decide whom to admit, interviewing, which can discriminate against less articulate pupils, was not to be encouraged. Nevertheless, although the school was aware that admission via interview was frowned upon, it continued to do it. Neither the LEA nor the schools in the vicinity raised a complaint with the adjudicator. Eventually, a group of parents complained to the local government ombudsman, who recently found in the parents' favour and against the LEA, on the grounds that the school's admissions practices were unfair and that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the school complied with the Government's code of practice.
	The second case concerns the Coopers' Company and Coborn School in Upminster. Again, some parents complained to the local government ombudsman that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the governors followed the Government's code of practice on admissions. In both cases, if parents had had the right to refer objections to the adjudicators, the breach of practice might have been discovered and put right earlier.
	The amendment would not open the floodgates for objections from individual parents. Subsection (2)(b) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe which parents might refer objections. Currently, they must be parents of a child of compulsory school age receiving primary education. Subsection (9)(a) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the conditions to be satisfied before an objection could be referred by parents. Currently, the regulations require that at least 10 parents are involved. Both conditions are reasonable, and we do not seek to change them. We seek to open up the opportunity for parents to make such objections. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: Having spoken to my first amendment today, it will be no surprise that I seriously object to this amendment. I believe that it ascribes to the adjudicator powers which are not, and should not, be contained within the Act. It would give the adjudicator powers of investigation which I believe would be quite wrong. He would then acquire a bureaucracy and a back-up service that would duplicate the work of the Ombudsman. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, described a remedy that was available to aggrieved parents if a school was breaching the law.
	I do not agree, but the law says that schools are not allowed to interview for admissions. If schools were found to be interviewing, and the governing body was not prepared to remedy the situation, the local education authority could step in. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that in some cases local education authorities turn a blind eye. However, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene and investigate whether the law is being broken by a particular school. Indeed, the Secretary of State also has powers to instruct the local authority to do something about a breach of the rules and regulations by an individual school.
	All the remedies are there in law. I am sorry that schools do not have freedom to interview for admissions to their schools, but that is not the point of Amendment No. 208. The amendment is to invoke the procedures, including the adjudicator, and I strongly oppose that idea.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I have concerns about this amendment and I was intrigued by the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, gave to the Committee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am also worried about the issue of interview. I do not believe that there is an overwhelming case against schools having the right to conduct interviews—in fact, sometimes it can be fairer than some of the other methods that are used. These are issues that are best settled by common sense rather than by diktat. As the noble Baroness has said, if there is an unfairness there are now ways of remedying that.
	My greater concern is not, therefore, about the specific cases which have been laid before the Committee, but that we can go so far down this road that we will actually encourage a process of complaint. We live in a blame culture and there will always be aggrieved people—whether it is by interview, by examination or by going to the head teachers of primary schools. Whatever system is used there will always be complaints about the way in which the system has worked. Although I believe that there are really deep concerns, there ought to be a mechanism, as there has been in the past, for resolving them.
	I believe that to incite and encourage even more complaint will lead to even greater unhappiness. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment will solve the problem, although I recognise the sincerity with which it has been raised today. I suspect that it will only add to the sheer level of complaint and the number of people who do not like the decisions that have been made. Even though some people may not approve of it, we must decide locally on an admission's policy.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, this amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power under Section 92(c) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to prescribe the type of objection about admission arrangements which parents of a prescribed description may refer to the school's adjudicator.
	The current situation is that under regulations parents in groups of 10 have the right to refer an objection to the adjudicator. However, those objections are restricted by the regulations to admission arrangements which make provision for partial selection and which have been in place continuously since before that legislation came into force. We gave parents that right because we believe that they should have the opportunity to make their views known when such partially selective arrangements are an issue. As noble Lords will know, we believe that it is up to parents to decide the future of selective admissions to existing grammar schools through a ballot and petition process.
	We have considered whether we should extend parental objection rights further. We intend to do so by amending the regulations to enable parents of the prescribed description to object where an admission authority determines an admissions number which is lower than the one indicated by application of our new net capacity assessment formula. We believe that to be right, bearing in mind that standard numbers are to be abolished, together with the statutory process for changing them in which parents had a right to be heard.
	However, there was not a great deal of support in our consultation in England for extending parental rights of objection beyond what we have proposed. We asked consultees whether they thought we should go further. Just under one third of respondents thought we should, and not all of those suggested going further in that particular respect. Existing legislation does allow us the flexibility to extend parental objection rights further in the future if we consider it right to do so.
	We are fully aware of the two cases of Prendergast and Coopers schools to which the noble Baroness referred. As regards interviews, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know, Church or boarding schools may interview as part of their admission's process—Church schools, of course, to assess religious commitment and boarding schools to assess suitability for boarding. That is a provision we would not want to see removed. Of course, in the case of the Coopers School the issues were about the use of interview. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, heard this, but in the case of the Prendergast School the local education authority was found guilty of maladministration.
	We hope that the signal that has been sent out to local education authorities is a strong one. We want them to take seriously the issues concerning the questions with which they are dealing. Nominally, we believe that we should be able to rely on the rights of objection which admission authorities already have, and community and voluntary controls will, of course, be given by the Bill.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, parents are interested in the effects that admission arrangements have on their own child's chances. For example, it could be that one group of parents may want to object to the inclusion of criteria which are quite normal and acceptable, such as priority for siblings. Another parent group might object if that priority were removed.
	As our consultation did not produce a strong call for an extension to parental rights, we have not yet been persuaded of the need to give parents additional rights of objection other than those relating to admission numbers, to which I have already referred. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am unhappy in the sense that I do not know precisely what the consultation processes were. Of course, questions in a consultation document can actually steer the answer to that and it may be that parents were not actually given the opportunity explicitly to answer the question. It does seem that there is an asymmetry at the moment between the rights of parents in the sense that they have the right to object on number, but not actually to object on admissions arrangements. It seems rather unsatisfactory that they have to go through the long-winded process of going to the local government ombudsman. I agree that one hopes that this will send out a clear message to schools such as Prendergast which were contravening the regulations.
	I will do further homework on this issue, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 211:
	Page 139, line 3, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991
	13A In section 3 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (1991 No. 2) (transactions for which advice or consent of Board is required), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
	"(cc) consulting under section 89(2) of that Act about proposed admission arrangements for any school year;"."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I rise to move Amendment No. 211 and to debate Amendment No. 246 also in my name. The two amendments relate to the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 and have been agreed with the Church of England. Starting with Amendment No. 211, Section 89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires admission authorities for schools to consult on their proposed admission arrangements for the following academic year. They must consult with all other admission authorities, including local education authorities, within a specified relevant area. They must take into account any representations made when reaching a final determination of their admission's policy.
	Many governing bodies voluntarily consult the diocesan board but that is not a statutory requirement. Therefore, there is no formal mechanism for ensuring that a school has a say in admission to its schools. The General Synod Board of Education has asked the Government to amend the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 so that diocesan authorities can have greater influence in local decisions about admission arrangements for Church of England schools. By requiring governing bodies of these schools to consult with diocesan boards of education and to have regard to their advice, we can provide the Church with a means to encourage schools to fulfil their commitment to have more inclusive schools. I hope therefore that Members of the Committee will accept the amendment, which is supported by both the Church of England and the Government.
	I turn to Amendment No. 246. I want to begin by acknowledging and welcoming the support of the Church of England for the academy's programme. The Greig Academy in Haringey, one of the first opening this September, is sponsored by a Church of England trust and by the London diocese. The diocesan authorities for Leeds and Liverpool are involved in plans for a Church of England and ecumenical academy respectively in those local education authorities.
	My noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard, who is not in his place, was kind enough to refer to the plans in Liverpool during his speech on Second Reading of this Education Bill. The Government have already provided in the Bill for Church of England academies to be added to the categories of schools which can benefit from funds held in uniform statutory trusts; a type of trust which holds the proceeds of sale of closed Church schools and allows for them to be used for other Church schools.
	We are now bringing forward the amendment in response to a request from the Church of England. The Church has asked that the remit of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure should be extended to academies with links to the Church of England. The DBEM gives diocesan authorities rights to advise, issue certain directions to and be consulted by Church of England schools. In practice, and for academies, that will mean under Section 2 of the DBEM the relevant diocesan board will be able to advise the governors of Church of England academies on any matter and promote Church of England academies within their area.
	Under Section 3, the governing body of a Church of England academy would need to seek the advice of a diocesan board and have regard to that advice before disposing of any part of its premises. The trustees of a Church educational endowment held wholly or partly in connection with a Church of England academy would need to obtain the advice of a diocesan board and have regard to that advice before altering the purposes for which the endowment might be used. Where a diocesan board was satisfied that the trustees of any Church educational endowment held wholly for a Church of England academy was using the endowment in a way that was not in the best interests of the school, or the trustees were failing to discharge their functions, the board would have the power to direct the trustees on how to act and the trustees would have to comply.
	I commend the amendment to the Committee and I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: It would be a great service to me and to the Committee if the Minister were to read the order as it will be amended. The order as it is available from the Printed Paper Office is completely incompatible with the amendment because, apparently, it has been amended so many times subsequently. While the Box has been extremely helpful to me, I do not have a copy with me and the amendment as it appears makes no sense as against the papers we are examining. If the Minister could say how the diocesan order will now read, that would be a great service to me and to other Members of the Committee.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: While that is being done, I rise to thank the Minister for her courtesy and to declare an interest as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. I was also the Bishop who steered the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure through the Synod and came to give evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament all those years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in saying that the Measure has been amended to meet developing changes and circumstances in education, as the past 10 or 11 years have rolled by.
	Amendment No. 211 is most important because it brings forward the fact that our Church of England schools are part of a family. Some of our earlier debates on "exclusive" and "distinctive" and so forth are greatly affected by that. Those Members of the Committee who were privileged to read last week's Times Educational Supplement will have seen a serious letter from the headmaster of a school in Bolton. He seriously disagrees with the policy of the board of education and has been trying to drive a wedge between its officer and myself as chairman, which is quite unworthy of the issue. The fact remains that we want governing bodies of Church of England schools to take account of the diocesan policy. I am therefore most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 211.
	Amendment No. 246 is a way of helping exciting developments to take place and ensuring the Church's continuing interest in the academy as it is. However, it also ensures that should the academy fail the rightful assets of the Church are returned for educational purposes, as though it were any other Church of England educational trust.
	There are exciting developments to which the Minister referred, not least in Liverpool where the proposal for a joint Anglican/Roman Catholic academy is far advanced. But throughout the country, through the auspices of diocesan boards of education and other Church sponsored bodies such as the Church Schools Trust, interesting developments are coming forward. I am grateful that Amendment No. 246 will enable those to go forward with an underlying sense of the interests of the Church as the providing body to be preserved.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I hope that it will help the right reverend Prelate to know that, following the correspondence he referred to in the Times Educational Supplement, I spoke today with a group of teachers from Church schools. They had seen that correspondence and wholeheartedly supported the position taken by the right reverend Prelate during our Committee proceedings. I have personally supported the position and have associated my name with a number of the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate in relation to these issues.
	I was pleased that, like the Minister, he mentioned the initiative in Liverpool. I have been involved with that and have supported it and I pay great tribute to Bishop James Jones who spearheaded that initiative in the city. During the 30 years since I was first elected to Liverpool City Council, I have been privileged to see such a terrific change in the relationship between the different denominations. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is also aware of the relationships developed between her noble friend, the right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, its former Bishop, and the late Archbishop of Liverpool, Derek Warlock. That has flowered in the continuing relationships between the leaders of the Churches, including the Moderator of the Free Churches and perhaps more importantly on the ground in a city which was once caricatured for sectarianism.
	As recently as the 1950s, the two Bishops refused even to say the Lord's Prayer with one another because they did not recognise each other's orders. We have had our Orange Day marches to celebrate the crossing of the Boyne and the St Patrick's Day marches, too. Although some of the city's past has been disfigured by sectarianism, it is a model for the future and shows how far we have come and that it is possible for the Anglican and Catholic communities in that city to work closely together on education issues. Yes, differences will remain but that is not the point. Where people can stand together they should,
	I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for the way in which she has dealt with these issues throughout the proceedings of our Bill. It should not turn into a mutual admiration society and I am sure that it will not, but occasionally Ministers are entitled to be told how well they have done. I have frequently encountered Ministers who can be difficult or obdurate and who knock down any reasonable amendment simply because it was not one of their own Members who put it forward. I have noticed in the way in which the Minister has dealt with these sensitive questions throughout our proceedings a real willingness to involve all those who are affected by them and to try and find a rational and sensible way forward. This amendment provides an opportunity for putting that on the record.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to welcome any development in the academy programme. They are city technology colleges in all but name. They have been most successful and, although during our previous debate the noble Baroness said rather dismissively that she hoped there would be no more of them, there are to be more of them and with the Government's blessing. I welcome that.
	I particularly welcome the Church's involvement with that, and even more particularly welcome the way in which the Anglican and Catholic Churches are working together. Indeed, they have worked together before, but in the academy's programme that is particularly welcomed.
	Furthermore, I welcome the advent of the academy in Liverpool because it ought to have benefited from the first tranche of city technology colleges. Sadly, it did not although the area was right for such experimentation at that time. It is late in the day but I welcome it.
	I want to make two technical points. The first is to support my noble friend Lord Lucas, because reading the orders is most important. Although the legalese is complex and defeats most of us, they must make sense and I am not convinced at this stage that they do. Therefore, my noble friend with his eagle eye has made a valuable intervention which in a technical sense needs to be answered.
	My other question is purely technical and relates to Amendment No. 246. My understanding is that when a third party, whether the Church or a private commercial venture, enters into an agreement to establish an academy, usually the ratio of the third party contribution to the Government's contribution is a relatively small one: in some of the academies it may be a £2 million capital grant, against many more millions put in by the Government. If at some future date the premises are disposed of, are the Government saying that all of the Government's input, together with the relatively small input of the third party—in this case the Churches—would fall to the Church of England?

Lord Dearing: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, prick my conscience. I am conscious that when the Minister rises to respond, she stands so frequently alone. Looking at the Benches behind her, I cannot recall many occasions when there has been overwhelming support—with notable exceptions, of course, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as he indicates.
	I am grateful to the Minister for the first of the two amendments. I was involved in a report about the way ahead for Church of England schools in which my committee was concerned to endorse the principle of inclusiveness. We recommended in the report that all dioceses should adopt the policy, already employed by many dioceses, of offering guidance to schools on their admissions policy. This was against a background of encouraging greater inclusiveness in those schools where the policy was to admit Church of England pupils only—such schools are a small minority.
	I have been much heartened by the line taken on this matter by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the House of Bishops. The adoption of this amendment will help to encourage inclusiveness policies throughout Church schools.
	I also pay tribute to the work of the Bishops in Liverpool. This is a triumph. The Church of England Synod, in its discussion of the report on the way ahead, specifically and strongly advocated an ecumenical policy—and here we have it, as a flagship. I hope that it will serve as an example to many.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was nearly overwhelmed for a moment. I, too, want to pay tribute to all that happens in Liverpool. I was involved in 1975 in the World Council of Churches events that took place. They were truly ecumenical; they were something of a novelty at the time and recognised fully the work of the two Bishops who became synonymous with Liverpool and with unity. I should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the part that he has played.
	Perhaps I may quote from Section 3 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991, and then state where the amendment fits in. I hope that that will help the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The section deals with transactions for which advice or consent of the board is required. It reads as follows:
	"(1) The governing body of any church school, and the trustees of any church educational endowment held wholly or partly for or in connection with any church school shall obtain the advice of the Board for the diocese in which the school is situated and shall have regard to that advice before—
	"(a) publishing proposals for any prescribed alteration to the school under section 28(2)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;
	"(b) publishing proposals for the discontinuance of the school under section 29(2) of that Act;
	"(c) serving notice of an intention to discontinue the school under section 30(1) of that Act".
	The amendment would insert a further paragraph:
	"(cc) consulting after section 89(2) of that Act about proposed admission arrangements for any school year".
	To return to the technical question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it was a very good technical question. I am afraid that I must write to the noble Baroness. I cannot answer it.

Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. There is no paragraph (a), (b) or (c) in the original 1991 Measure, so one can become totally lost trying to find where the amendment fits.
	This is very much where I had hoped that we should end up. Schools will have to pay attention to what the diocese says and we can berate the Bishops, at least for a few years yet, if the diocese is not saying things that we like.
	I am encouraged, too, by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which seemed to indicate without being specific that the Roman Catholic Church will follow along similar lines. I know that it has had its difficulties in the past with particular foundations which have not chosen to follow diocesan advice or indeed have said that diocesan advice is of no relevance to them at all. A few exceptions do not matter. What matters is that the broad thrust of religious education in this country is inclusive. I shall be delighted if this turns out to be the way it works in practice.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 212:
	Page 139, line 3, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Selection by aptitude
	In section 99 of the 1998 Act (general restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) subsection (4)(b) is omitted.
	Section 102 of the 1998 Act (permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects) shall cease to have effect."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of the amendment is to drop the provision now open to specialist schools to admit up to 10 per cent of their pupils on the basis of aptitude.
	Section 102 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 allows the admission authority of schools with a specialism to give priority for up to 10 per cent of the pupils who can demonstrate an aptitude in the relevant subject. Current regulations allow selection in physical education and sport, the performing arts, visual arts, modern foreign languages and technology. The Government are now extending the range of specialisms to include maths, science and business and engineering specialisms.
	Our objection to the ability to select by aptitude is threefold. First, it is unnecessary. Government-funded research undertaken by Dr Anne West and colleagues at the London School of Economics found that of the schools responding to their survey—namely, schools with a specialism—only 7 per cent were actually selecting by aptitude. In other words, in practice, very few schools use this facility. Indeed, when pressed about the legitimacy of such selection processes, the Government's usual response has been to say: "Very few schools do it, so why worry?". But it is very strange to justify legislation in such a way. It would be better by far to remove it from the statute book.
	Secondly, there are real doubts about whether it is possible to distinguish testing for aptitude rather than ability. Professor Peter Mortimore, then director of the Institute of Education at London University, writing in the Guardian in 1998, declared that it was not possible to diagnose specific aptitudes for most curriculum subjects. Where it is used, it is more likely to be used by voluntary-aided and foundation schools. A Written Answer to a Question posed by Mr David Chaytor in another place on 5th March 2001 listing specialist schools operating as of that date showed that, of the 24 schools using the facility to select by aptitude, 19 were foundation or voluntary-aided schools. In most cases these schools set tests and/or interviewed pupils.
	Tests and interviews of the type used in these circumstances do not widen choice—they give more choice to those few children (and their parents) who pass the test or interview, but for most children and parents it means that, whereas their local school used to take pupils from across the whole ability range, it is now restricted, and it is the school, not the parents and children, which is doing the choosing.
	Thirdly, although little used at present, the substantial expansion in the number of specialist schools may lead to the process of selection becoming more commonly used. There is a domino effect: when one school in a neighbourhood starts setting an "aptitude test" to select 10 per cent of its intake, neighbouring schools feel obliged to follow suit. In many areas—my own area of Guildford is an example—all secondary schools will be specialist schools of one sort or another. Parents who in the past have been confident of a place on the grounds of nearness to a school put their children in for the test "just in case", with the result that more and more children—on top of their year seven SATs—now face entry tests for secondary school, with all the worries and, if they fail, the perception of failure that this entails. Is this really what the Government want?
	To return to my first point, at present so few schools test by aptitude that this is an unnecessary procedure. We should like to see it removed from the statute. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: This really is high politics. We are returning to what I have always regarded as the politics of envy. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, speaks against the background of a very recent press release from Mr Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrats' lead education spokesman in another place. The press release states:
	"Let me make clear my opposition to selection in whatever form it takes. By ability. By aptitude. By specialism or by faith".
	That is the background against which she speaks.
	I profoundly believe that education should educate children so as to match their aptitude and abilities as closely as possible. As the Minister herself has argued, the "one size fits all" approach certainly does not work and we need different types of school for different children.
	There is already a great deal of selection. Parents select school by moving house—to an area where there is a school that they would like their children to attend—but that option is not available to those who cannot afford to move. There are tests and entrance examinations for young people seeking to enter dance schools, drama schools, language schools and schools specialising in science and technology. There are arrangements for young people wishing to do particular courses after 16. Some young people present themselves for a particular course at a further education college, but, sometimes, when their aptitude and/or ability is tested, they are counselled that they are perhaps over-reaching themselves or seeking to join the wrong course for their particular aptitude and abilities. Although the colleges may not be able to stop young people taking those courses, they nevertheless try to counsel them in a manner that accords with their best interests. Aptitude and ability are tested also in colleges and universities.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We are saying in this amendment that we are against testing for aptitude at 11, not 16 or pre-university. We accept that it is possible to set tests to measure aptitude at those ages, but we do not think it feasible to do it at 11.

Baroness Blatch: I really would like the noble Baroness to attend some of these schools to see just how successful they are. I am pleased to support the Government in their policy objective of expanding the number of specialist schools. They want more children to have the choice. They want more and more children to receive an education that matches their needs, aptitudes and abilities as closely as possible.
	As I was about to say before the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I do not want to get into the issue of the difference between ability and aptitude. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who preceded the Minister in her role as education Minister in this House, never succeeded in distinguishing ability from aptitude, and I do not want to get into those semantics. I know that someone with an aptitude for science and technology usually has to have an ability in relation to the same. Equally, those with an ability to be proficient in dancing, drama and/or music usually also have an aptitude for them. It is an arcane argument that I do not wish to enter.
	I really do believe in opening up the education system and selecting children. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that even some special schools select children. Some pupil referral units select children. It seems absurd to say that selection should cease regardless of whether it is on the basis of ability, aptitude, specialism and/or faith.
	Perhaps I am remiss in not familiarising myself with Section 99 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. However, given that legislation and the Government's programme for city technology colleges, city academies, specialist schools and even their bursaries for dance and music schools, I cannot see them accepting this amendment. Nevertheless, if they were to accept it, my understanding is that that would be the end of grammar schools, specialist schools and city academies, all of which are comprehensive in every sense of the word. By law, under a band system, they have to accept pupils across the ability range. Consequently, if the amendment were passed, many young people could be disappointed. This is a mean-spirited amendment and I hope that it will not be accepted.

Lord Peston: I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because she has done a better job than I could possibly do in stating everything that I disagree with in education. I am rather shocked that the Conservative Party, of which she is an official spokesman, has gone back that many years in defending selection, secondary modern schools and all the things that we have spent most of our lives trying to get rid of.

Baroness Blatch: I did not go very far back. City technology colleges, city academies, specialist schools, the remaining grammar schools and the introduction of 10 per cent selection at many of our schools are all current policy, not only of the recent Conservative government, five and a bit years ago, but of the current Government of whom the noble Lord is a member.

Lord Peston: I am not a member of the Government. That may be to the Government's loss, but perhaps I may make the famous remark, "I am not and never have been a member of the Government". I was speaking for myself. I was saying that the noble Baroness has outlined everything that I have spent my whole life in education opposing. I should add, just to rub the point in, that the sooner we get rid of the grammar schools, the better it will be for the education system of this country. The same applies to specialist schools and so on. I am opposed to selection, which is disastrous for our education and for the education of all of our children.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the politics of envy. However, people like me who are incredibly clever do not have to be envious of any of these things at all, because we were the ones of whom everyone was envious. We got everything. We had to grow up and mature—I certainly did—to know that, apart from everything else, that was morally wrong. As I have said before to your Lordships, in the grammar school I attended, we were divided from the moment we arrived. Everyone thought it was a great triumph to get past the 11-plus, but, before one looked round, some of us were in the A form and quite a few were in the D form. It is that that some of us have fought all our lives to try to take out of our education system.
	On the aptitude/ability theme, I know that my noble friend the Minister has previously tried to explain the distinction, and I am sure that she will try to explain it again today. The research evidence is overwhelming that aptitude measured in a narrow sphere and ability measured in a broad sphere are enormously highly correlated. As those of us who remember the 11-plus will recall, we had a test that tested our aptitude in mathematics and our aptitude in English. The idea that it was a measure of general ability was simply the view of people like Sir Cyril Burt, who probably did more damage to the education system of this country than anyone else we can think of. The idea was that these measures of aptitude were measures of general ability. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is entirely right.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the Government have gone down this path. However, that does not mean that I personally have to accept it. I think that, one day, we shall realise what an error that was. I regard all the other forms of selection she mentioned as equally bad. I am therefore particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, as I was wondering when I would get an opportunity to make a pro-comprehensive speech today. Until the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke, I did not realise that this debate would give me that opportunity. Some of us ought to go on record as saying that we believe in what we have always believed in. Sometimes we may deviate from that but we at least like to believe—I say to the right reverend Prelate that this may be a matter of faith rather than anything else—that one day the education system of this country will revert to what it should be.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Lord mystified me in an earlier debate when he appeared to vent his feelings so strongly against selection for particular kinds of schools. But in his latest contribution he accepted the fact that, as soon as a child enters the secondary phase, selection automatically takes place. The noble Lord referred to his own experience of selection. How on earth can one not have selection in schools by way of streaming or some children being more interested in a particular group of subjects than others—for example, the sciences or the arts? That surely is inevitable. Irrespective of whether an outside authority does the selection or a head teacher, the child himself will select.

Lord Peston: I referred to the grammar school I attended. I pointed out that it was selective before one got there and became even more selective once one was inside. My experience of comprehensive schools—I refer, for example, to the schools that my children attended—is that their philosophy is different. Their philosophy is that every child can be taught and that the role of the teacher is to bring out the best in every child being taught in the school and not to say, "Some children are capable of being educated but others are not".
	All children are worthy. To go back to the politics of envy phenomenon, clever young people, as I was, have to be told, "So what? You are just a person like everyone else in the school. You do not deserve more resources. You do not deserve more attention". I am totally committed to that philosophy. I am not saying that some children do not work harder than others or that teachers do not have their favourite pupils. As my daughter, who teaches non-literate young people has discovered, it is certainly easier to teach someone who is literate. It is much easier to teach someone who is already "OK". However, our task is to regard every young person as worthy of an education.
	Some of us may not have aptitudes in certain areas. I have no aptitude for drawing. It did me the world of good to be made to look completely incompetent in that field. The teacher tried to get me to understand perspective. I understood it mathematically but I could not understand how to incorporate it in drawing. The noble Baroness is entirely right to say that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy between us on this matter. She has given us the opportunity to make clear which of us believe in what. I am totally indebted to her for that.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support. At one point I felt somewhat isolated in the Chamber. I reiterate the point that we are here talking about selection at the age of 11. The Government's campaign of having more specialist schools has been successful. However, I believe that it has been successful as the route of becoming a specialist school has brought more money into those schools. It brings an extra half a million pounds of funding into any secondary school. That has been the main driving force behind it. We do not deny that that money has helped to improve performance. In this country we spend on average £2,500 per secondary school pupil. Private schools spend £6,000 plus per pupil. If we could spend an extra £500 per secondary school pupil, that would make a difference to results. The reason schools want to go the specialist route is to gain those resources.
	I agreed with the Minister's comment that it is good for schools to feel that they have something to shout about. That makes them proud and gives them an ethos. Nevertheless, why select? I come back to the point at which we started. One cannot select someone satisfactorily at the age of 11 according to aptitude or ability. The important point about the comprehensive principle is that it holds open the doors so that pupils can display their capabilities and develop them. We know that children develop at different rates. Some are early developers but some are late developers. It is vitally important to hold open the doors and to give them the chance to develop. That is what the comprehensive system is about. That is why we on these Benches support it.

Baroness Blatch: This is an interesting and rather important debate. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that one can select at the age of 11 and it does work. One can see examples of that around the country. As this debate will be read by people outside the Chamber, I ask the noble Baroness whether it is her party's proposition that all selection should end and that all specialist schools, all city academies, all academies, all city technology colleges and all grammar schools should be converted to comprehensive schools? Is that what the noble Baroness argues for—an end to selection and a one size fits all schools?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I answer that by saying that as a party we believe in devolution of responsibilities. Although as a party we are committed to comprehensive education, we acknowledge that local authorities have traditionally run education in this country. We believe in a regime—which this Government and the previous government, if I might say so, have done their best to ditch—of diversity and pluralism in government. Local authorities have an important role to play and, given that education is one of their responsibilities, it is up to them to make their own decisions on this matter. In this vein, we acknowledge that the boroughs of Kingston and Sutton prefer to keep their grammar schools.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has introduced an interesting confused note into the debate. We ought to act with some humility in this Chamber. We are enormously privileged to belong to it. We are increasingly privileged still—unless the impending reforms of this place change that—to be party to making legislation. If the noble Baroness believes in devolution of responsibilities, she should not in her position as a maker of legislation cut off the opportunity to allow people to make decisions at a local level on whether they want to keep selection. The amendment of the noble Baroness states that we in this Chamber decree that there will be no selection by ability. However, at the same time the noble Baroness is trying to argue that her party believes in devolution of responsibilities and that people should make their own decisions at the local level.

Lord Dearing: I do not argue from principles. As a long-standing civil servant, by definition I have no principles. I am a pragmatist. I do respect the principles expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. However, if I have a principle, it is that of responding to the individual child. If all our schools could respond to all our children according to their needs, I should walk warmly with the amendment. However, in a society where we cannot equip all our schools to offer excellent facilities and teaching to all children according to their aptitudes—and I believe that we are not such a society—and are able to provide excellent facilities only on a limited scale, we should seek to accommodate a child who has a distinctive talent.
	It is said that Mr Beckham has the most talented right foot in the world but I am not aware that he is equally talented in other areas. I would be anxious to give a young Beckham the opportunity to develop his talents. A child may be a talented musician. Last night I listened to and watched the Young Musician of the Year competition. A child of 12 won the strings section of the competition. That child was remarkable. All the competitors were remarkable; they were all extraordinarily talented. That talent should be nourished in schools that have special facilities.
	I refer to mathematics. I remember sitting at the feet of a professor at the university I attended—a less distinguished one than the LSE. He described exceptional ability in mathematics as "spooky". I knew that I did not have that spooky ability, but some people are especially talented.
	If we are saying that we cannot afford to equip all of our schools with first-class engineering, IT or music departments, and if we are saying that we seek in Guildford, for example, to ensure that all schools there have specialist school status in some area or other and that they were complementary, and if we say that we should reserve only 10 per cent of places for children who seemed to have a particular talent, I cannot see that we are adopting a repulsive policy of selection by denying the 90 per cent the opportunity to share in the specialism. We should be saying only, "Because some children have special talents, let us nourish them by giving some places—a small minority of places—to them". I do not think that this denies to the many the opportunity to have exposure to those facilities. It involves saying, "For those children who happen to have a special gift, let us ride with it and help them".

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: When one thinks about it, this is a very complex debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not have a great deal of time for faith schools in contemporary society. He consistently paid tribute to the work of the Churches in earlier times. The one thing that he has to admit is that the Churches have embraced the comprehensive principle within the umbrella of the faith—both Roman Catholic and Church of England.
	I stand before the Committee as the product of a small grammar school. I remember the day when I was called out with six others to the front of my primary school to be acknowledged and affirmed about going to the grammar school. As a working-class boy, I doubt whether I should be here today if that had not happened. That is just how things were. The problem at that time was that secondary modern schools were not given adequate resources.
	The problem today with comprehensive education is the ability of the rich to buy the comprehensive education that they want by moving house. I remember when I worked in South London that people would buy houses within the area of the Wandsworth Comprehensive School, which in those days had a terrific reputation. I taught at the Spencer Park Comprehensive School by Clapham Junction. It was a sink comprehensive. It is closed so I can make such statements without the public record having to reveal that. We worked very hard and tried to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. In the programme for speech day, a student's degree and university were put after his name if, like me, he had been at Oxbridge. If students had been at Leeds or elsewhere, that information did not appear—they were just "BA" or "MA" or whatever was appropriate. The fact that I got into Oxford via theological college is very interesting but I shall not go into that tonight. That was the situation.
	That has been replaced by a system in which comprehensive schools in urban deprived areas take only a particular group of people from homes that are, on the whole, socially deprived. I support the Government's plans involving city academies and specialist schools because I believe that the drive behind that is to enable boys like me, and girls of the same age that I was then, to develop their aptitudes and skills in the way that Beckham—if that is the example that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, finds helpful—has developed his.
	The dilemma for those holding the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I believe that the Churches have tried to go with that—is how one deals with the business of "choice by wealth" within the maintained sector. I do not see how one can sort that out without social engineering, which none of us favours.
	On balance, I therefore come down in favour of what the Government are trying to do; that is, to enable those who have aptitude and ability to be affirmed despite a background that may be to their disadvantage, however willing their parents may be that they should grow. I do not know how we square the circle in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, rightly wants—the best for every child—against what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, suggested; that is, that comprehensive schools are not currently achieving that. That involves not so much grammar schools—there are so few of them left—but wealth and where people are able to buy housing.

Baroness Andrews: We should do this complex debate a disservice if we did not put on record two points. First, comprehensive schools in this country display enormous talent in terms of teaching and learning. A huge cultural diversity—multicultural diversity—is visible on the walls of those schools. I refer to the music of the schools, scientific displays, their academic and cultural achievements and the way in which they work with the community. There is enormous diversity and achievement. On both sides of the Committee, we take pride in what has been achieved during the past 30 years—not least by the party opposite—in terms of abolishing the barriers to talent-flowering through changes to the system of comprehensive education. We should all celebrate that. The debate about specialism is in danger of diminishing what we all recognise are the achievements of our comprehensive schools.
	Secondly, the Labour Party's commitment to comprehensive education is unconditional. We celebrate that in many different ways. I was deeply sceptical a few years ago about the growth of specialisation. I saw it as having a distorting effect on communities and schools. I have watched the debate develop and seen the impact on schools, which want to demonstrate that although they offer a broad and balanced curriculum in which there is a positive ethos and great achievement, they also want to do other things. The development of specialisation, whether in relation to arts, sports, science or engineering, provides an important opportunity.
	I was concerned that we seemed to be saying that 50 per cent of schools should have those opportunities. I am reassured that every school has the aspiration. The more schools I talk to, the more convinced I am of that. The concept of working towards specialisation is exceptionally important as an aspiration and it will be an important achievement. That will be the antidote to distortion.
	This is a serious debate, and it is keenly and personally felt. Diversity has brought great achievements and opportunities. I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by those on the Benches opposite. We have not compromised principles of comprehensive education in that regard.
	I, too, am the product of a hugely selective grammar school system. Without that education, I, like 95 per cent of the children with whom I went to primary school, would have had a secondary modern education. Thirty years ago, that was hugely inferior and hugely disadvantageous. We have lost a tremendous amount of talent nationally as a result.

Lord Lucas: I should certainly not go all the way with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I cannot see how one can run a music school or a dance school, for instance, without having some form of selection. The idea that I could have gone to a dance academy simply because I wanted to is ridiculous. I do not think that the noble Lord would have enjoyed the experience of watching me at a dance school, either.
	There is a better way to approach this matter. I am in favour of parents choosing schools rather than of schools choosing parents. Two things need to be done to achieve that. First, we should free up the supply of schools and school places; we shall come to that in relation to a later amendment. It is crucial to stop the straitjacket that does not allow schools which are of the type that parents want to expand and come into existence but which forces parents to choose from the types of schools that exist.
	Secondly, we need to change the school transport system from one that is run for the benefit of local authorities in order to make it extremely difficult for parents to choose schools, to one that is run for the benefit of parents, so that they have the maximum possible chance of getting their kid to the school that they want him to go to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that Beckham's left foot is not bad, either. We hope to see it in action a great deal. I was smiling to myself about that example because the person who I referred to this morning when discussing special schools was David Beckham. He is much in our thoughts at the moment.
	Members of the Committee have covered much ground in relation to specialist schools. Before turning to the amendment, I want to make a few observations. We are dealing here with comprehensive schools. We are celebrating things that are the same about our schools and which we relish but also their differences. The specialist school model gives schools the opportunity to demonstrate the icing on the cake—the ability to provide something above and beyond a good education for all children.
	On a visit to Stevenage last Friday, I met the head teachers of seven secondary schools—all of whom are considering applying for specialist school status. Stevenage is a new town that perhaps suffers from low aspirations and schools with a high number of children having special educational needs compared with the national figure. Those head teachers were keen on a collaborative model to develop specialisms that they could share between themselves and beyond—including all the primary schools in the area. That education model is supported by the LEA and involves working closely with the chamber of commerce and other partners.
	We discussed the kind of education that children will need, particularly in a world in which technology has revolutionised how information is sought and found. Perhaps there is a need to prepare today's children differently. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, was at Stevenage. He and I have discussed on many occasions the issue of teaching modern foreign languages and how to prepare children beyond the model of French, German and Spanish for the global economy. Allowing schools to offer their local communities something extra, in addition to a good education, is good in the context of the kind of education that children will need in future.
	The regulations state that with some of the specialisms that we have now schools should be allowed to select a maximum of 10 per cent of children by aptitude. I return to the example given by my noble friend Lord Peston. Some children really can draw and are superbly talented in the visual arts. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we might allow a few such children to attend a specialist school. That is not to say that such a specialism would not be offered broadly in the community.
	Ninety-four per cent of schools do not make use of selection by aptitude and maybe never will, but that option is worth having in recognising that children are different. It does not mean that we want to return to the days when differential education meant that one received either a good education or practically nothing. Within a system that is geared and designed to give the best that it possibly can, specialist schools have a role—particularly in disadvantaged areas.
	It is true also that the Government's aspiration is that one day every school will be a specialist school and will work together with others if it wishes. Some schools might choose different routes. It is about what a school wants to do. Specialist schools often collaborate closely with local education authorities. In Stevenage, as in other parts of the country, schools are working together to develop specialisms to serve their own communities and beyond.
	I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about transport. As he knows, we are looking at pilot schemes.
	We do not accept the amendment. If a community feels that selection by aptitude is not the right kind, there are opportunities for parents to lobby the admissions authority or for that authority to object. In light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We have had a useful debate. I did not expect much support from the Official Opposition and am delighted at that which I received. Neither did I think that the Minister would concede the amendment.
	We must be careful not to be too urban-centred. There are real problems with the concept of specialist schools in rural areas, where only one secondary school serves the population. The concept is something of a smokescreen because it is essentially a matter of obtaining more money to provide some schools with additional resources. I am delighted that the Minister will spread the goodies around, which is vitally important. More money needs to be spent on secondary schools.
	I take on board the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Lucas. Dancing and music are talents that children develop at an early age. Few benefit from attending highly specialist establishments, such as the Yehudi Menuhin school for violinists, which produced the Young Musician of the Year. The majority of kids attend school at age 11 and develop their ability. By the time that they are 14 or 15, they know whether they are going to be a Beckham—whereas at age 11 there may be no signs.

Lord Peston: I am not under the impression that Mr. Beckham or any of our other talented footballers have got where they are as a result of attending a specialist school. The case is completely unproven so far as I know—let alone whether Mozart went to a specialist school. On reflection, the whole thing is preposterous.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I think that Mozart had a specialist father. The great thing is that the Beckhams of this world did not attend specialist schools and that the comprehensive system served them well.
	I pay tribute to the comprehensive system. When I arrived at my grammar school, the pupils were rapidly streamed and I was told firmly by the lady in charge of history—I majored in history—that third or C grade children should not be attending the school because they were not up to a grammar school education. Today, 50 per cent of children achieve five A to C grades in GCSE subjects when they were not considered capable of sitting the old GCE examination. If one sets one's sights high enough, one can achieve. We want the comprehensive system to open doors, to allow pupils to achieve as much as they can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 49 [Exclusion of Pupils]:

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 213:
	Page 33, line 19, after "may" insert "in exceptional circumstances"

Lord Lucas: The amendment would restore something that the Bill appears to remove-—a provision that exists as part of Circular 11/99 but is not in the Bill. It is right that children should be excluded from pupil referral units only in exceptional circumstances. It is the job of PRUs to deal with children as they are. If units start to exclude children on the same basis that would be justified in an ordinary school, they are not doing their job. I would like the policy back where it was before the Bill.
	Much the same applies to Amendment No. 214. A school's right to exclude and the parents' right to information and to make representations are in the legislation as currently drafted—one against the other. In this Bill, we find only the school's right to exclude and there is no mention on the face of the Bill of the parents' right to information and representation. I believe that the two should have equal status and, therefore, I should like that provision to be put back into the Bill.
	The wording of Amendment No. 214 has an additional effect in that it seeks to give parents the right to information and representation for short-period exclusions. The reason for that, of course, is that short-period exclusions are allowed to add up to a reason for permanent exclusion. One can find examples—there have certainly been documented circumstances—where children have received a series of short-term exclusions but their parents have not received information as to the reasons and have had no right to information or to make representations. Suddenly, those exclusions are accumulated into an allegation of misbehaviour over a long period, the child is excluded permanently and one suddenly finds oneself falling off a cliff. That does not seem to me to be reasonable.
	If something goes wrong with a child in school or if something happens which requires a child to be excluded, even for one or two days, then the parents should be involved, not least because there may be reasons for it and because the school may not appreciate that the child has a special educational need or a particular characteristic. There should be a dialogue between the school and the parents. It should not be open to the school simply to exclude a child without saying why or involving the parents. It is enormously important that that relationship is kept going.
	Amendment No. 215 has two completely different parts. I do not know why they were lumped together. The first gives the Government the right to issue guidance. They can do so at present but the Bill appears to end that right. Again, I believe that this is an area where the Government should have an influence on what schools are doing. They should be able to issue guidance, but I am concerned that the Bill appears to remove that right.
	The second part of the amendment provides an opportunity to tease the Government over Clause 50, in which they set targets for attendance. One of the principal problems that schools have in relation to attendance is that parents take their children out of school for holidays. Schools have no sanction against that. One can take one's child out of school for a couple of weeks and there is nothing that the school can do. Schools are generally grateful when parents are polite and ask permission first. But how can we hold a school to account for something over which it has no power?
	Therefore, I believe that if we are to measure schools by what they achieve in terms of attendance, logically we must give them the power to do something about it. But I do not see how that can be done. Perhaps the best answer is to remove Clause 50 and not to have attendance targets. Frankly, attendance targets should be set at 100 per cent and schools should be doing their best to achieve that. To set an attendance target of 92 per cent, which is approximately the current national average, seems to me to permit and encourage children to take off 8 per cent of their school days. If they have not had their ration towards the end of June, they should take off an extra couple of weeks in July in order to ensure that they reach the 92 per cent average. I simply want to understand why the Government are setting targets without giving schools the power to act. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support Amendment No. 214 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clearly, just as the right of head teachers to exclude is being kept on the face of the Bill, so, indeed, should the right of parents to appeal those exclusions be included.
	I draw particular attention to the matter of oral hearings. I am advised that holding a hearing, even for a very short exclusion, can be worth while because it gives parents the opportunity to raise issues which may be affecting their child both at home and at school. Any emerging difficulties can then be discussed before they become entrenched. An oral hearing may be the only way that parents with literacy problems, for example, can make their views known.
	I also want to speak to my Amendment No. 216, which is grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. The purpose of this probing amendment is to ensure that all assistance is available to looked-after children in appealing their exclusions. The amendment seeks to ensure that the letter currently sent out by the head teacher immediately following an exclusion informs the parent or carer of a local advocacy service or one of the parent support services established, I believe, under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
	The importance of advocacy for such children is highlighted many times in the Government's own guidance on education and looked-after children. In their guidance on exclusions, the Government say:
	"Schools should be especially sensitive to exclusion issues where children in care are concerned . . . In cases where, nevertheless, a child in care is excluded, the person (for example, a foster parent) or organisation . . . having parental responsibility for or care of the child will have the right to make representations and appeal and should pursue these rights if there are grounds for appeal".
	However, we know that very few exclusions of looked-after children are, in fact, appealed. That may be because carers are often over-stretched and under-supported. The availability of an independent, free advocate early in the exclusion process would at least help the child to feel that he had had a fair hearing and that we valued his participation in mainstream education.
	I have often met young people who have come through the care system. It is most striking how very disenchanted they are with the education system and with the whole idea of learning or of picking up a book of any sophistication.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the thrust behind the amendments. I certainly believe that it would be not only inconceivable but wholly wrong for parents not to be informed at the point of exclusion. It seems to me that it would be irresponsible of an education authority and/or a school to exclude a child from school permanently, in particular, without informing the guardian, the carer or the parent.
	My understanding is that statutory procedures are in place which would require the parents to become involved in everything that leads to the point of exclusion. Very few schools would reach the point of excluding a pupil without a number of measures having taken place prior to that; that is, the parents or, where necessary, the carer and/or the guardian, would be brought in and talked to.
	However, through the Minister I want to ask a question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Again, I want to support him. It seems to me that young people in care—that is, looked-after children—are already very vulnerable. I believe that they need someone to act on their behalf. However, I wonder whether Amendment No. 216 is not a little like bolting the stable door in that the advocate is called for only at the point of exclusion.
	As I said a moment ago, I believe that in a number of cases a school has taken the view that the behaviour of a child is such that it wants to take disciplinary measures against him, culminating, when all that fails, in a decision to exclude. I know that the process is lengthy and that it can be challenged, but I believe that most children will have a parent who will be involved in that process.
	However, where the parent is either uncaring or wishes to have no part in supporting the child in school, it seems to me that someone should speak up for the child. In particular, where the child is in care, if the carer is not prepared to act as advocate, it is important that someone else does so. However, in relation to Amendment No. 216, I should prefer that to be done at an earlier stage than at the point of exclusion.

The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this point. Of course, it would be better if a child received advocacy support early in his school career. Ideally even before he enters a school, someone should speak up for the child. In the other place, an amendment was moved to the Adoption and Children Bill which would put on the statute a requirement that children in care should have free access to an independent advocate. I hope that we shall consider that matter when that Bill arrives in this House. I declare an interest as a patron of A Voice for the Child in Care.
	However, as matters stand, there is no independent and well trained advocate for looked-after children in the education system. Given the current position, at a critical moment in a child's life there should be an independent, free, local advocate available to him or her.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the spirit of Amendment No. 213. As I said in an earlier debate, 331 pupil referral units are registered in England. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that they carry out excellent work with some of our most disadvantaged young people, enabling many of them to re-enter mainstream schools. Exclusions from pupil referral units are rare and no decision to exclude from such a unit is taken lightly.
	There is already guidance in our Circular 11/99, which says that we would expect exclusions from a pupil referral unit to occur only in exceptional circumstances. We give the example of where a pupil poses a threat to his or her own safety or to the safety of other pupils or staff. So we already have what the noble Lord wants, but in guidance and not in legislation. In practice, there are very few exclusions from pupil referral units—perhaps 10 a year.
	I firmly believe that guidance is the appropriate place to set out examples of what "exceptional circumstances" may mean in practice. We believe that legislation that restricts exclusion to "exceptional circumstances" without further definition could open doors to interpretation and possible legal challenge. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that our expectation is that exclusion from a PRU will be a rare occurrence. When the guidance in Circular 11/99 is revised, we shall emphasise that point.
	I turn to Amendment No. 214. I can assure noble Lords that the head teacher's existing duties to inform parents about the period of exclusion, reasons for the exclusion and right to make oral or written representations to the governing body will be set out in full in regulations. Parents will have the right to make representations about permanent exclusions and fixed-period exclusions totalling more than five school days in any one term. Fixed-period exclusions of five school days or fewer in any one term will not attract the right to make oral representations. That will be a matter for the governing body's discretion. As noble Lords have said, we would expect the dialogue between school and parents, which we want for every child, to be an ongoing process and not something that comes into play only when a child has a problem. I am mindful of the burden of meetings placed on school governors. We believe that we need to give them some discretion as to the need for meetings in respect of less serious exclusions.
	Turning to Amendment No. 215, Clause 49(4)(b)achieves the result sought by the first part of the amendment. A head teacher of a maintained school or a teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. No one else may exclude a child.
	On the second part of Amendment No. 215, I recognise that the noble Lord is teasing out what is in fact part of the clause stand part debate to which we shall come later. I am reluctant to get into the detail of that matter now. It will not be a surprise to noble Lords that we do not believe that absence is an appropriate ground for exclusion. To get pupils back into school, we believe that it is important to work with those pupils and to address the problems that can lead to irregular school attendance. The problems may be due to circumstances in the home, to the disaffection of the child and, in some circumstances, to bullying. We believe that our approach is the right way forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned school holidays. Schools have discretion to grant a maximum of 10 days' leave of absence for the purpose of family holidays. We recognise that schools need to be sensitive to the needs of families, but some families take extended holidays. We have approached that matter in a way that we believe is right: by working with the community so that such families understand the importance of education and of their children's attendance at school. That is a relationship that links into the Education Welfare Service. That service works to identify children's attendance problems and it recognises the importance of a child being at school. As noble Lords know, parents can face imprisonment if their child does not attend school and if reasonable steps have not been taken to ensure that he or she does so. We believe that the use of exclusion to deal with truancy or absence would be self-defeating.
	I turn to Amendment No. 216, which raises a serious issue about advocacy of children in public care in the context of exclusion from school. I fully support the concern of the noble Earl to ensure that children in public care are properly supported, not only in this context, but more generally in their educational development. That is an issue that the Government take very seriously.
	The noble Earl talked about the Adoption and Children Bill that is currently before another place. We are considering how best to ensure that children in public care have the necessary advocacy. I am not sure that the best way forward is to put requirements in legislation in the way that the amendment seeks to do as that may be too constraining. Permanent exclusions, for example, are reviewed to a strict statutory timetable and there is no scope for delaying meetings while independent advocacy is sought, if that is necessary. It may be more helpful to have an adult who knows the child and who can provide more continuity of support throughout the child's education and be involved in that process.
	However, I can undertake to keep the noble Earl well informed of our developments in improving support and advocacy for children in public care. It is open to the Committee to return to the debate on these issues as we deliberate the Bill. I can assure the Committee that I am working extremely closely on these issues with our colleagues in the department so as to address them properly. I hope on that basis that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for her response to my amendment. My amendment is grouped with that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and on this occasion I had not intended to move it but simply to speak to it. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I look forward to reading Hansard.

Lord Lucas: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that she has disposed of Amendments Nos. 213 and 215 quite satisfactorily. I shall consider carefully what she has said on Amendment No. 214. I still have difficulty with at least two aspects of the provision as it is set out.
	I do not believe that we are providing enough incentive for a school to ensure that the dialogue with the parent takes place properly when a child finds himself or herself on the road to permanent exclusion by means of a series of small exclusions. In other words, it is not clear to me that we are providing a process that will not allow a school to get away with failing to communicate so that suddenly a parent is faced with the permanent exclusion of his or her child after a series of small exclusions. That would be a particular problem if a child had a five-day exclusion in one school year and a five-day exclusion in the next school year, and then, as has happened, was suddenly faced with a permanent exclusion for having been temporarily excluded for 10 days and for being a persistent offender, and that was the first the parent heard of it.
	There has to be a duty on the school to communicate with the parent and to keep the parent involved. It is unsatisfactory for a school to be able to use the power of permanent exclusion when nothing serious has happened to justify it. There may be a failure by the school to communicate a series of small indiscretions and small misbehaviours that may well be the result of an undiagnosed special educational need. There may be an issue that should have been taken seriously by a parent and by the school at a much earlier stage rather than the matter being dealt with by minor punishment.
	I shall consider the matter and I shall talk to ACE, the Advisory Centre for Education which has been helping me with the amendments. I shall return to the matter on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 214 to 216 not moved.]

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: moved Amendment No. 217:
	Page 33, line 23, at end insert—
	"(aa) requiring a head teacher to provide the responsible body with information on the identification of, the assessment of and the provision made for any special educational need that an excluded pupil may have,
	(ab) requiring the responsible body to take account of any information provided under paragraph (aa) in determining whether or not to reinstate an excluded pupil,"

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: In moving Amendment No. 217, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 223, 226 and 227, tabled in my name. It is a mixed bag in a larger sack about information, advice and legal protection for children with special educational needs. The amendments are very different, and I shall need to speak to each in turn. I hope that Members of the Committee will therefore bear with me, but will be consoled by the thought that they will hear from me only once today.
	Amendment No. 217 ensures that a head teacher excluding a pupil is required to provide information to the responsible body about any special educational needs of an excluded pupil, and that that body takes account of the information when deciding on reinstatement.
	There is information to suggest that sometimes an inappropriate SEN provision, or a failure to make such a provision, leads to the exclusion of a pupil with special educational needs. That point is underlined by the National Autistic Society, whose 2000 report on inclusion found that 21 per cent of children with autism spectrum disorders are at some stage excluded from school. It shows that frustration from lack of understanding leads to challenging behaviour, which in turn results in exclusion.
	This amendment does not seek to prevent the exclusion of children with special educational needs when necessary. Nor does it impose further work on the school, because the information will be available. But the special educational consortium feels that it may prevent inappropriate exclusions stemming from a failure to meet the special educational needs of some children.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 223, which would ensure that, where a claim of disability discrimination was being heard as part of an exclusion appeal, a legally qualified person with an understanding of the DDA would chair the appeal panel. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating my earlier arguments on Amendment No. 199 on admission appeals. The same questions and arguments apply. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is back in his place and in good voice. As the Minister will understand, this whole special educational needs package is designed to wind him up yet one further notch.
	I shall be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on Amendment No. 219, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I think this amendment means that appeals could be heard by the SEN Disability Tribunal, just as appeals for fixed term exclusions will from September go to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, where claims are made under the DDA for fixed term exclusions. Those panel members will have received training in DDA duties.
	I ask the Minister to assure me that where a claim of disability discrimination is made at the same time as an exclusion appeal, the clerk—if not the chair—of the independent appeals panels for exclusions will be legally qualified; that the clerk will have received training on the DDA duties; that panel members will have received training on the DDA and will have access to the clerk's legal knowledge; otherwise, in view of the fact that those facing fixed term exclusions will go to the SENDIST and those children facing the seriousness of permanent exclusions may lose out, we may have a two-tier system.
	I turn to Amendment No. 226, which would ensure that parents of children with special educational needs who are excluded from school are referred to an independent source for information and advice on their and their children's rights. It is worth reminding the Committee that children with statements of special educational needs are seven times more likely to be excluded than other children.
	IPSEA's casework—I declare that I am a patron of IPSEA—shows that children with statements are excluded for a variety of reasons; that simply appealing for reinstatement is not always relevant; and that, even when it is, it is rarely a sufficient remedy on its own. Children may be excluded because the LEA has failed to put in place the support that it has asked for in its statements or because the statements are so vaguely written that the parents and the school have no clear idea of how much or what kind of provision is needed. A head teacher may exclude children in order to highlight the problem, or teachers may not know how to manage particular behaviour that is not threatening or aggressive but which disrupts the work of the class—in other words, a cry for help. There are many more reasons.
	Similarly, there are various or a combination of actions to best help the child: an immediate review; a reassessment leading to a statement quantifying provision; a change of school, and so on. Parents need to explore all those possibilities. They also need to consider whether to appeal against exclusion—whether they actually want the child to return to school. This amendment would guarantee parents contact with an independent organisation or person who can help them reach an informed decision.
	In conclusion, I turn to Amendment No. 227. This amendment would ensure that a decision by a governing body or an exclusion appeal panel to reinstate a child who had been excluded would result in a resumption of the child's education. The Members of the Committee may think that there would be absolutely no necessity for this amendment. But, following the judgment in the case of L v Governors of J School (2001), an order for reinstatement by an exclusion appeals panel may lawfully be interpreted by a school as a requirement to admit a child on to the school premises, but not to their class or to any class or any particular educational provision. The effect of that judgment is to vitiate potentially every decision made by a governors' discipline committee or an exclusion appeal committee that an excluded child should be reinstated.
	In that particular case, the reinstated child was kept out of lessons because the teachers' unions threatened to strike when they learnt of the reinstatement decision. The court held that, given the damage that would have been caused to the education of all children in the school, the head acted reasonably in bowing to the unions' threat. But Lord Justice Laws, in a rider to the judgment, raised the possibility of teachers' unions as public bodies being susceptible to judicial review because of such a threat. He suggested that if a trade union takes a position designed in terms to frustrate the lawful decision of Parliament's delegate—here the appeal panel—that might be vulnerable as a matter of public law as being calculated to undermine the rule of law.
	In this Bill we have an opportunity to resolve what has suddenly become a very volatile legal situation. The amendment invites Parliament to decide what powers it intends appeal committees to exercise in the future, rather than leave it to litigation and the vagaries of case law. It would place a duty on a governing body to ensure that a child received education following reinstatement. It would not limit the powers of a discipline committee or an appeal committee to uphold an exclusion by rejecting a parent's appeal for reinstatement. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this issue or assure me that it will be dealt with in some other way.
	I return to Amendment No. 217, which would ensure that the head teacher excluding a pupil is required to provide information to the responsible body about any special educational needs that such a pupil may have, and that the responsible body take account of the information when deciding whether or not to reinstate an excluded pupil. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I have tabled three amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220. Amendment No. 218 asks the Government what the words, "in any prescribed case" in line 17, page 33, are intended to achieve. They appear to me to allow the Government to exclude the right to appeal in certain circumstances. I shall be interested to see what the effect is.
	Amendment No. 219 is intended to be a helpful suggestion. Today's statistics suggest that there are about 1,000 appeals per year that must be made to panels constituted by local education authorities. On a rough calculation, that would mean that each LEA's panel would hear approximately eight appeals per year, and can therefore scarcely be expected to accumulate any great degree of expertise or breadth of experience.
	Many of these appeals will involve children with special educational needs. Roughly 70 per cent of pupils in pupil referral units have such needs; indeed, about 20 per cent of them have statements, while 50 of them are without statements. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that a large number of pupils who become the subject of appeals will have special educational needs. The tribunal established under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has, or will have, a greater depth of experience and a good deal more specialist experience available to it than an occasionally constituted LEA tribunal. It will also have a range of remedies available to it that may prove to be much more constructive in particular cases; for example, imposing a requirement for the training of staff or other remedial measures to be introduced into a school so that it will be better able to deal with the pupil in question.
	Amendment No. 220 uses the tribunal, in whatever form it may be, to give a right to a pupil or the parents to assert the right, which, as the noble Baroness has quite correctly said, will come into force this September, to full-time education if he has been excluded from school. At present, if a pupil is excluded he theoretically has this right to full-time education. However, if it is not provided, there is no useful way to enforce that right. If the LEA is dilatory and provides the child with, say, five hours of tutorial a week and does not bother to do anything else, there is no easy comeback for the parents. Therefore, this amendment would provide a route whereby parents can enforce the right of a child to full-time education in an easy and practical way.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support Amendment No. 217 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 221 and 225 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp.
	In view of the large number of excluded children who have special educational needs, it seems to me that it is vital that the nature of such needs is well understood by those charged with giving them an education—it is to be hoped with a view to reintegrating them into the mainstream, if appropriate, at some future date. It is also vital that they are obliged to take notice of that information. I echo the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that the reason for the exclusion in the first place may be partly because of the inability of the school to deal appropriately with a child's special needs. How much more important, therefore, that this situation is not perpetuated in the child's new educational environment.
	Amendment No. 221 seeks to ensure that LEAs provide sufficient resources in the school, or pupil referral unit, to meet the needs of children and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties. It should always be the case that exclusion is used as a last resort by head teachers seeking to protect the rest of the children in the school and to find an environment more suited to their particular needs.
	The Government recently introduced a number of measures that may, if successful, reduce the incidence of high level disruptive behaviour. We also welcome the commitment to provide full-time education to excluded pupils. However, there has been little so far to address the every-day concerns of both teachers and pupils whose lessons are disrupted by pupils with special emotional and behavioural needs within the mainstream. Despite the fact that there is a responsibility on central government and LEAs to meet the needs of these pupils, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that those needs are met.
	There are many things that can be done in this respect. On a recent visit to Japan, I was very impressed to learn that every school has a professional counsellor available to help children with emotional and behavioural problems. I wonder whether the problem of disruption has become so great that something of the sort may be needed in this country. Whatever the solution, the matter is one of great concern both to teachers and to other pupils, as a number of recent consultations have shown. For example, in the recent teacher workload study, PricewaterhouseCooper found deteriorating pupil behaviour to be a major concern. An annual survey of pupils' views conducted by Keele University found the same concerns among them.
	I recently received one view of the matter from a year 10 pupil, Sheila Begum from Swanlea School in Whitechapel. She said:
	"From my point of view, I think kicking pupils out of school permanently is not the best thing to do and is not the answer to improve pupils' behaviours. From my school, I have seen so many pupils being expelled, whose immature behaviour has increased or stayed the same after being expelled. I think that pupils who have bad behaviours at school and put others' lives in danger should be put in a behaviour school where they can get punished, but still continue with their education".
	The Government have stated that they are committed to a focus on,
	"prevention, early intervention and the provision of education for long term excluded children",
	so why not include the provision of appropriate resources on the face of the Bill?

The Earl of Listowel: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 219 and 222, which are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224, which is tabled solely in my name. I should mention that this amendment has the support of both the British Psychological Society and the Who Cares? Trust. I have often heard from teachers and educational psychologists that not enough children are being assessed for special educational needs. We heard this at the beginning of our debates this afternoon; and, indeed, we have heard it several times during the course of this debate. Those with conduct disorders or emotional disorders are being overlooked and often treated as being "naughty" rather than in need of help.
	Two separate reports in the 1990s of academic research found that approximately 90 per cent of excluded pupils were presenting with special educational needs. In the light of that research evidence, the case for the utilisation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal is very strong. In his critique of the school exclusion appeal system entitled Challenges to School Exclusion, Professor Neville Harris urged that panels should be able to play both a judicial and a welfare role, recommending next steps for children.
	Under the terms of Amendment No. 222, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, in tandem with the Community Legal Service, could play an important role in spotting children who should have received a statement but have been missed. Together, they could make a significant improvement to current practice.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 224 is to ensure that excluded children receive a fair hearing. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her earlier support, which I much appreciated, for the idea of advocacy for looked-after children in school. Exclusion is a critical event in the lives of these children. The Leggatt report on tribunals recommended that tribunals, such as independent appeals panels, should have a legally qualified chair. Professor Neville Harris has also recommended that panels should be chaired by appropriately trained lawyers.
	These cases are becoming increasingly complex—a complexity that will be sharpened by the implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. An exclusion clerk, a former deputy head of a special school, suggested to me that a legally-qualified chair would ensure greater consistency in outcome, which would be welcomed by schools. I would prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but, failing that, I hope that my amendment will find sympathy with the Minister.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Before I begin to speak to this group of amendments, perhaps I may make clear the fact that I have a good deal of sympathy with the intentions that lie behind them. That applies also to the remarks made by all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. At this point it may be helpful for me to make a few general remarks which may take the debate forward.
	In this Bill we are trying to set out the key principles of the law, which will be backed up by provision in regulations and in guidance. While our view is that legislation must be in place to secure the key rights and duties of all parties concerned, we equally know that legislation can be a blunt instrument when dealing with very serious matters of judgment and as regards guiding appeal panels to ensure that all appeals are heard on their merits.
	I turn to Amendment No. 217, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. Although I sympathise with the intention of the amendment, I believe that it is a matter best left to guidance. We are very aware of the increased risk of exclusion that children with SEN face. I do not think that the noble Baroness was in the Chamber earlier when I said that the figures that have been released today were interesting. The figure that such children were seven times more likely to be excluded has dropped to three times more likely. That figure is still on the wrong side, but it is interesting and I look forward to discussing it in more detail with the noble Baroness and others as we begin to understand precisely what has happened.
	We have put in place a requirement on local education authorities to arrange for parents of children with SEN to be provided with advice and information about matters relating to their child's needs. The LEA must make this service known to appropriate people and must make arrangements to avoid or resolve disagreements between parents, schools and LEAs.
	The guidance on exclusions also makes it clear that schools should avoid permanently excluding pupils with statements or who are being assessed for a statement. I believe that such matters are best left to guidance. But we shall look to ensure that the guidance is as clear as it can be on that point.
	I turn to Amendment No. 218. This part of the Bill refers to both permanent and temporary exclusions. If it were a permanent exclusion, there would be a right of appeal, so that is why the wording is as it is. I assure noble Lords that in making regulations we intend to preserve the key features of the existing exclusion and exclusion appeal legislation which builds in rights for parents, pupils and schools.
	In addition, we are establishing a right of appeal in relation to exclusions from pupil referral units. As I said, the clause deals with both permanent and fixed term exclusions. Under the provisions included in Sections 64 to 67 of, and Schedule 18 to, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, only parents of pupils who have been permanently excluded may appeal to an independent appeal panel. As noble Lords will know, fixed period exclusions do not attract the same rights—they are a matter for the governing body alone.
	Therefore, the wording in the Bill is intended only to preserve this position. There will be a right of appeal to an independent panel in relation to all permanent exclusions, but not in relation to fixed period exclusions. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
	Amendments Nos. 219, 223 and 224 all deal with the nature of the body that hears exclusion appeals. Amendment No. 219 seeks to have appeals heard by the SEN and Disability Tribunal, while Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 suggest that there should be legally qualified chairs of appeal panels.
	It is my view that exclusion appeals are, and will be adequately dealt with by independent appeal panels. The task of an exclusion appeal panel is quite simple. It must first consider whether the pupil committed the offence, or offences, which prompted his or her exclusion. If the answer is yes, the question that it then has to consider is whether permanent exclusion is a reasonable response to that behaviour, taking account of all the circumstances and any mitigating or aggravating factors. Panels provide an appropriate forum for redress and an appropriate educational remedy. They can direct reinstatement.
	We believe that a lay panel can deal with those issues without the need for a lawyer to chair the panel. There is a risk that the requirement to involve a lawyer would unnecessarily formalise the appeal process, potentially raise costs and cause delays in constituting a panel. Appeal panel members are unpaid volunteers and panels are arranged locally by LEAs, involving local people of good sense, if I may so describe them, many of whom are known to your Lordships. We believe that they can perform the job well.
	We have made it clear in statutory guidance that we expect every clerk to the appeal panel to have legal training and to be familiar with exclusions and equal opportunities legislation. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks. Exclusion appeal panels already deal satisfactorily with issues including sex and race equality, and there is no reason to believe that they will be unable to deal satisfactorily with issues of disability discrimination.
	I would also point out that the new arrangements introduced by the SEN and Disability Act will apply for the first time from September this year. During the passage of that Act, our starting point in considering rights of redress was to use the existing appeals mechanisms where they were suitable. Therefore, although the SEN and disability tribunal will hear most cases of disability discrimination, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with exclusion appeals. The House accepted during the passage of the SEN and Disability Act that independent appeal panels were the best route for hearing appeals against permanent exclusion from maintained schools. The panels work well and can provide a quick and appropriate remedy by directing the school to reinstate the child.
	In turning to Amendment No. 220, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others that we are committed to providing every excluded child with an appropriate education suitable to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. That is why we have said that we want every LEA by September of this year to provide full-time education for all pupils excluded for more than 15 school days.
	However, I do not believe that the independent appeal panels should be given powers to deal with the LEA's duty under Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996. The appropriate remedy if a child has been wrongly excluded is clear—reinstatement. But an independent panel has no power and is not the right body to direct an LEA as to how it should discharge its duty to provide suitable education for that child. There is an existing mechanism for resolving disputes between parents and LEAs on this duty under Section 496 of the Education Act 1996.
	In relation to Amendment No. 225, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for allowing me to make it clear that we shall certainly keep exclusions guidance in force. The existing guidance is set out in circular 10/99, which explains what should be done before resorting to exclusion, when exclusion should be used and the procedures for excluding pupils. We have issued for consultation draft revised guidance and plan to issue revised guidance in its final form later this year.
	I turn to Amendment No. 226. The current guidance on social inclusion and pupil support already makes it clear that a head teacher who excludes a pupil should notify the parent immediately, ideally by telephone, and should write within one school day. The letter should include the name and telephone number of a contact at the LEA who can provide advice on the exclusions process, and a helpline number for the Advisory Centre for Education, an independent body that is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, which provides free advice and support for the parents of excluded pupils.
	We have strengthened the arrangements for identifying, assessing and providing for children's special educational needs and have taken action to promote partnership between parents, schools and local education authorities. I therefore believe that strong arrangements are being put in place to support children with SEN and their parents in these circumstances.
	I now turn to Amendments Nos. 221 and 227. I confirm that the important matters in Amendment No. 221 will be dealt with in guidance, which can more fully set out the subtle matters of judgment to be taken into account here. To address the first part of the amendment, Clause 49(4)(b) requires a person or body administering or reviewing an exclusion
	"to have regard to any guidance given from time to time . . . by the Secretary of State or . . . the National Assembly for Wales".
	I believe that to put such matters in regulations would be too inflexible.
	The second part of Amendment No. 221 covers an important issue, which is also addressed by Amendment No. 227, which is the reintegration of an excluded pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has already referred to the judgment that was handed down, from which I shall quote shortly. This is an important part. The Appeal Court has recently confirmed that an appeal panel's direction to reinstate means the removal of the exclusion but not necessarily a return to the status quo. Lord Justice Laws in his lead judgment said:
	"The reality is that once he is reinstated, his exclusion is cancelled and he is to be treated like any other pupil; and in respect of any pupil, special or particular measures or initiatives may be required at any time".
	That means that although it must always be the intention to ensure that the reinstated pupil is fully re-integrated into school as quickly as possible, there may be circumstances when an immediate return to the classroom on the same conditions will not be possible. I think that deciding how to manage a pupil's reinstatement is best left to the judgment of the school or PRU concerned, perhaps with assistance from the LEA, taking into account all relevant factors and conditions.
	I hope that in the light of all I have said, noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the answer to Amendment No. 218, which I suspect answers it fully. I shall need to read carefully what the Minister said about Amendment No. 219, and see whether other aspects of the way that appeals will be dealt with need to be covered. With regard to Amendment No. 220, I think that I misheard the reference she made to the 1996 Act. The section that I thought she mentioned has nothing whatever to do with relationships between local authorities and parents. Perhaps she will repeat the reference in the 1996 Act.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was making the point that we did not believe that independent appeals panels should be given powers to deal with what is an education authority's duty. It is a duty under Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I invite other Members of the Committee to speak to my amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may say a few words. The Minister said that excluded pupils returning to mainstream are to be treated like any other pupil. Of course, that is exactly what they are not. That is the reason why they were excluded in the first place. Often they have very special needs. That is why we, from these Benches, would prefer that a commitment is put on the face of the Bill to provide appropriate resources to the school dealing with them on their return. That commitment would be most welcome. With that, I end my remarks.

Lord Lucas: I have now found Section 19(1). It does not give parents any rights at all. It puts a duty on the local education authority to make arrangements for the full-time education of pupils. But if it fails to do that, there is nothing that the parents can do about the matter. That is the problem that I was trying to address. Can the noble Baroness say whether in circumstances where a local authority fails under the duty in Section 19(1) one has to take the matter to the High Court to get it to move?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When I continued on from the statement that I made about Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996, I said that that was the responsibility of education authorities. I then went on to say that there was already an existing mechanism for resolving disputes between parents and local education authorities. Sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 state that, including by parents, these disputes could be referred to the Secretary of State. She of course has power to direct an education authority if she determines that it is failing in its duty. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear me. I hope that that answers his question.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister very much for her careful, considered and detailed reply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support on Amendment No. 217. I think that I am reassured about the guidelines. The Minister was right; I was not in the Chamber when she said that the number of excluded children with SEN had gone down, and they are now three times rather than seven times more likely to be excluded. I am absolutely delighted about that.
	Amendment No. 223 relates to the independent appeal panel. There is a good deal of support for everything going to SENDIST. So long as SENDIST is not overloaded, I might be for that too. I am happy with what the Minister said about the clerk being legally trained. It is important for the clerk to have legal training. She did not say firmly whether the appeal panel members would have a reasonable amount of training—not just an hour—in DDA.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We would want all appeal panels to be trained. The clerk would have specific training in that function and that role, but we would expect—indeed, it happens—appeal panel members to want that training and to make sure that they have as much knowledge as possible.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: That needs to be the case because, as the Minister knows, the questions asked with regard to DDA are terribly important. There will be access to the clerk.
	Amendment No. 226 relates to the helpline. I think that I am reassured by the ACE helpline for parents and children.
	I shall read carefully what the Minister said about Amendment No. 227 because the matter is complicated. I think that I am a little reassured, but I shall probably need to come back to it. I am not totally sure about the judgment part. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is nodding. She is very supportive of the amendment, but could not be in her place earlier. I am nevertheless very grateful to her. Perhaps I could discuss the matter with the Minister at some stage outwith the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 218 to 221 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill commences again not before a quarter to eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Epilepsy

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to implement the recommendations of the section Epilepsy—Death in the Shadows of the Chief Medical Officer's annual report 2001.
	My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate this short debate on epilepsy during National Epilepsy week and to thank those noble Lords who will be participating.
	I start by declaring an interest as president of the British Epilepsy Association and chair of the All-Party Group on Epilepsy.
	I wish to preface my remarks by highlighting the prevalence of epilepsy and touch on the consequences for those affected. Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder. It is a major global health problem with an estimated 50 million people affected worldwide.
	At any one time, over 300,000 people in the UK have some form of active epilepsy. Every day about 32 people will be told that they have epilepsy. Yet in spite of its prevalence, it remains a hidden and sometimes feared condition. It remains in the shadows. As a consequence, people with epilepsy are all too often at a greater disadvantage than those with physical and sensory disabilities.
	Children with epilepsy may be excluded from mainstream education because of their seizures. Thirty per cent of children with severe epilepsy may also have learning difficulties. People with epilepsy are likely to be needlessly unemployed or socially excluded. They often face discrimination in the workplace.
	Last year, I went with representatives from the Joint Epilepsy Council to meet Bert Massie, chair of the Disability Commission, to ensure that discriminatory practices against people with epilepsy were recognised and understood. We were positively reassured when he told us of a case he had defended in an industrial tribunal of a man who had seizures only in his sleep and who worked days but was sacked when the management found out that he had epilepsy. As he did not sleep during the day and on the job he won his case. This was a classic example of lack of understanding and latent prejudice.
	Since 1953 there have been five government reports—1953, 1956, 1969, 1986 and 1999—which have all failed to be followed by any significant change in the services and support provided for people with epilepsy. Neither service planners nor policy makers seem to have been moved by the plight of people with epilepsy, irrespective of the fact that all these reports have drawn the same conclusions about the fragmented and poorly co-ordinated service provision. This only underlines the ignorance and apathy towards the needs of people with epilepsy. There must be better integrated care through better co-ordination and better cohesion between health, social services, education, employment and the voluntary sector.
	All the evidence also shows that about 80 per cent of people with epilepsy suffer only minor problems and could lead normal lives. Their symptoms are controlled by medication and there is a broad range of modern effective treatments. But there is no doubt that there is still a treatment gap. Approximately 30 per cent of patients with active epilepsy are not receiving treatment from a specialist. One in 12 people are not referred to a specialist at all. On average, it takes six months to one year from the onset of a first seizure to definitive diagnosis and treatment. Research also shows that 20 to 25 per cent of cases are wrongly diagnosed.
	That results not only in highly inappropriate and wasteful treatments being prescribed. It can also cause and exacerbate social and psychological implications for the wrongly diagnosed.
	I shall say a few words about women and epilepsy. Epilepsy for a woman is not the same as epilepsy for a man. For a woman, it can affect sexual development, sexuality, the menstrual cycle, aspects of contraception, pregnancy, the mother-child relationship and the menopause. Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about the variable standard of treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy. It is clearly crucial that all women wanting to become pregnant are referred for appropriate specialist advice.
	This Monday morning, I had the privilege to chair the launch of the National Sentinel Clinical Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death. The audit was commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as a result of lobbying by organisations representing clinicians, researchers and the voluntary sector, led by Epilepsy Bereaved. The audit addressed questions and issues that had in the past been felt to be too sensitive to ask. The audit has brought epilepsy out of the shadows. Media coverage of the launch has enlightened many people who had no previous knowledge. I say that because of the many people who have approached me this week to discuss the question and express their surprise and concern.
	I want to place on record our sincere appreciation to the families, some of whom are listening to this debate, who bravely told us their own tragic stories, to Jane Hanna, who was the driving force behind the report, and to the team of professionals who have worked with her. The audit tells a tragic story of the scale of the problem, with about 1,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom. Tragically, 52 per cent of all epilepsy deaths were of people under 50. Three people die every day—half of them young people. Some deaths are due to accidents, drowning or extended seizure. However many—around 500—are sudden, unexpected deaths, SUDEP, which do not have a clear course. Parallels have been drawn between the trauma of cot deaths and SUDEP. It is clear why. Most individuals who die from SUDEP die in their sleep. As with cot deaths, families experience bewilderment, isolation and distress because the death is sudden and unexpected.
	The great tragedy is that the risks are known, and have been for a long time, but only 1 per cent of families are made aware that seizures can be fatal. So the fundamental question must be: were some of those deaths preventable; and if so, how?
	The audit addresses both of those questions. The conclusions do not make easy reading. There are major deficiencies and failings at all levels of care. Of the 595 deaths investigated, there were inadequate levels of care in 77 per cent of child deaths and 54 per cent of adult deaths. The principal criticisms were poor access to hospital specialists, inadequate drug management by doctors and poor medical investigations.
	Against the background of those criticisms, and given that better seizure control is likely to reduce the risk of epilepsy-related death, it was considered that 39 per cent of adult deaths and 59 per cent of children's deaths were probably avoidable. That says an awful lot about the society in which we live. Even in death, the victims were poorly served: 87 per cent were inadequately investigated; there were few post-mortems; and inaccurate statements were recorded as to the cause of death.
	If I had more time, I could cite many more examples of such deficiencies. We can only hope that the audit is a loud wake-up call to all those responsible for the care of people with epilepsy. As I said, it has certainly brought epilepsy out of the shadows.
	The report has been welcomed by the Chief Medical Officers around the UK. Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, has pledged to develop an action plan to reduce the level of preventable deaths within three months. I suggest that he takes note of the statement of good practice recently produced by the Joint Epilepsy Council, which calls for a review of local epilepsy services, early and better diagnosis, quick access to a specialist with knowledge of epilepsy, fast-track treatment procedures and, most importantly, better co-ordination between all professionals. Any action plan must also include giving better advice to people with epilepsy and their families.
	In conclusion, I can do no better than to cite the report of the Chief Medical Officer for England. Referring to the five government reports, he said:
	"The reports have remained largely unimplemented, negative attitudes to epilepsy still persist in our society and the disease remains an unglamorous area of clinical practice. It is a time for a real breakthrough in our approach to epilepsy, one that is modern, enlightened, transforming the lives of the 380,000 or so people in England who have epilepsy".
	I await with interest the reply from my noble friend the Minister as to how those wise words are to be turned into reality.

Lord Chan: My Lords, epilepsy affects 300,000 to 400,000 people in the United Kingdom and is the commonest serious condition of the brain. I therefore congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on initiating this debate today on a disease that causes needless deaths, especially in our children. Here I declare an interest as a Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
	The risk of premature death is two to three times higher in people with epilepsy than in the general population. Sudden, unexpected death in patients with epilepsy, SUDEP, is common among young people, especially children. Half of the sudden deaths in epilepsy take place in the 20 to 45 year age group and most occur at home. Those tragic deaths in people at the peak of their productive lives is eminently preventable. In addition, most people with epilepsy—about seven in 10—have the potential to be free of seizures if they receive adequate medical care.
	The urgent need for better care of people with epilepsy has been raised again by the publication of the report launched by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould: the National Clinical Audit of Epilepsy-related Death. That is the fifth major report following previous government reports during the past 40 years and it yet again recommends better care for people with epilepsy.
	I now summarise some salient findings of that important study. The latest national audit focused on 2,412 deaths in the 12 months between September 1999 and August 2000 where epilepsy was mentioned on the death certificate. Of those, 1,000 were due to epilepsy. Inadequate levels of care occurred in 77 per cent of child deaths and 54 per cent of adult deaths. Only one in eight of the deaths examined by the national audit were judged to be adequately investigated by doctors who attended them. Families received little information about epilepsy from healthcare professionals even though they may have other children facing a similar risk. Many doctors underestimated the risks of epilepsy, reflecting the mistaken belief that epilepsy is a benign condition.
	The audit concluded that an estimated six in 10 deaths in children and four in 10 adult deaths could have been avoided by appropriate investigations, adequate drug treatment and access to specialists in epilepsy. Other disturbing findings emerged from the national audit. In general, record keeping was very poor throughout the primary and secondary or hospital care of those patients.
	The following recommendations arose from this study. First, there should be better training among doctors including GPs on the management of epilepsy according to published national criteria. Secondly, there should be access to good quality care for epilepsy, particularly for people with learning difficulties. Thirdly, we need better communication between clinical staff and between healthcare professionals and patients and their carers. According to the report, shortcomings in those areas may have contributed to avoidable deaths.
	The Chief Medical Officer's annual report for 2001 stated that, within three months of the publication of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's national audit of sudden death in epilepsy, an action plan should be in place to cut the level of preventable deaths from epilepsy. NICE will provide guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in children and adults—that is expected in June 2004—and on the technological appraisal of epilepsy drugs for children and adults by December 2003.
	We need greater public and professional awareness of epilepsy. That need is reflected in the small number of Peers present this evening for the debate. Greater awareness will help to break down the stigma associated with epilepsy and galvanise greater commitment to helping sufferers. I look forward to the Minister's response on this important, common but neglected medical condition that leads to unnecessary deaths, particularly among children.

Lord Rea: My Lords, as president of the British Epilepsy Association, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, is a model leader of a proactive charity, not just a titular president. She last raised the subject of epilepsy in your Lordships' House in February 2000 and will, doubtless, continue to do so regularly until the care of epileptics improves and perhaps after that.
	We are discussing the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal audit of death and epilepsy, commissioned by NICE. It is worth pointing out that there have been four—or is it five?—major reports on epilepsy in the past 50 years. Despite that, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group reported, rather diplomatically, two years ago that,
	"the management of epilepsy in the United Kingdom is still less than optimal".
	Not much has changed in the past two years.
	One partial reason for the lack of action was that the condition was thought to have a low mortality rate, despite its socially and economically disabling nature. This report deals with death in epileptics and may, thus, grab the attention of the public, the Government and the health professionals more effectively than past reports. It should be said that epilepsy does not have a high mortality rate: it is 2.1 per thousand. However, death occurs at a younger age, robbing epileptics of decades of expected life. And, as has been said, the rate is two to three times higher than that among the general population of the same age.
	The report describes a retrospective study. It is well presented and effectively reveals the deficiencies in the current care of epileptics. Overall, in 54 per cent of the adult deaths and 77 per cent of the children's deaths studied, the patient was felt to have had deficiencies in care. It is difficult to attribute the deaths to deficiencies in care with any certainty. There are no similar studies measuring in the same detail the number of epileptics now alive and well who also receive deficient care. The percentages may not be all that different.
	What deficiencies were found? There is quite a list, and some of them were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Here are a few that relate to primary care; there are plenty more in secondary care. Too often, there was no structured review process. There was a low level of recording of clinical information; it was restricted to noting drugs and blood drug levels. There was no management plan, and few details of the type of seizure or of response to drugs or other treatment were recorded. There was a low level of re-referral for people with changing patterns of seizure or life events or trigger factors. The provision of information—if any—about epilepsy or its potential risks to patients was not recorded. There were problems in professional communication between primary and secondary care and individuals in both settings.
	It is not my place or that of the House to make detailed suggestions as to how the situation should be handled. The Chief Medical Officer has announced that, within the next three months, he will produce an action plan to reduce the number of preventable deaths. Work on that has already begun, and we should welcome that. However, because SUDEPs cannot be predicted, the only way to prevent them is to improve the investigation and care of all those with epilepsy, whether they have the idiopathic type—in which no physical changes can be found in the brain—or suffer from seizures caused by some other pathology—a tumour or a head injury. There is a long list of things that can cause fits.
	Although first diagnosis is best made by a neurologist, preferably one with a special interest in epilepsy, ongoing care will, in most cases, be managed by a general practitioner or—increasingly, I hope—by a specialist nurse trained in the care of epilepsy. He or she could well rotate around several primary care teams, giving advice on setting up management plans and other ways of managing patients with epilepsy at those practices. Of course, there must be ready access to specialist units for those whose seizure pattern is changing or not responding to medication.
	I want to ask my noble friend a few questions. I gave him some notice of that, although not much. How many consultant neurologists now work in the National Health Service? How many are paediatric neurologists? How well distributed are they around the country? The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, asked me to apologise on his behalf for not being able to make it this evening. He told me that Finland had the same number of neurologists as the United Kingdom but only one twelfth of the population.
	Are there plans greatly to increase the number of nurses trained to provide care for epileptics? Have we any figures for such nurses? Long-term or chronic conditions such as epilepsy require surveillance and adherence to a protocol. They are much better managed by nurses than by doctors, who are usually more interested in diagnostic detective work and initial treatment than long-term care. It would be an excellent plan for every PCT to aim to provide a dedicated service for epileptics, which could be run in a primary healthcare setting or a secondary healthcare setting. The director of such a service could come from general practice, nursing or a neurological background. It does not matter as long as they are well trained, interested and dedicated to the work. I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that such a resource might be considered.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for giving the House this opportunity to discuss a much neglected subject. I would really like to pay tribute to the work that she does as the chairperson of the all-parliamentary group. Under her astute chairmanship and with the concerted efforts of organisations such as Epilepsy Bereaved, The Joint Epilepsy Council, the British Epilepsy Association and the National Society for Epilepsy, things are beginning happen. I believe that is a great testament to her, and to them.
	Noble Lords may have read in the press earlier this week the story of Prince John, the fifth and youngest son of King George V, who was born in 1905 and diagnosed with epilepsy at the age of four. When he was 11 his fits got worse and at a time when eugenics was gaining credence he was sent away to a cottage on the Sandringham estate, cut off from the rest of the family completely, and denied education. In 1919, at the age of 13, he died of what we would now call SUDEP. Almost nothing has been heard about him since. Well, it happens in the best of families.
	This report, Epilepsy—Death in the Shadows, is an outstanding piece of work. It is a model of co-operation between the voluntary sector and the NHS. Shocking though its findings are in many ways, it is research of high calibre and, despite the classic criticisms of methodology from a medic, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, its calm, factual approach makes it all the more powerful. In the time available to me I want to focus on one subject on which the report sheds new light; namely, the issue of children with epilepsy. In light of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, I make this speech with a lot more trepidation than I would otherwise have done.
	Although the number of children in the study was not large, the findings specifically about children are particularly important. The waiting time for referral to specialist care is not analysed by age, but it is reasonable to assume that a typical wait for a referral by a GP to a specialist takes between one and six months. What happens in those circumstances? What happens is people go private. People who would do anything for their children feel that they have no option other than to go private. I am not an advocate of private healthcare—in fact, I passionately believe that wealth should not be a barrier to health-care—but I understand why those people feel they have to do so. My concern is for those who do not have the means.
	When referrals were made 35 per cent of people went to paediatric neurologists and only 3 per cent to specialists in learning difficulties. Given the increased incidence of learning difficulties among children with epilepsy, one has to question whether referrals to specialists were adequate. I say that because of all the children included in this study, whose secondary care notes were audited, none was known to be seizure free in the year before they died. Furthermore, the fact that a significant number of adults with learning difficulties got lost in the system during the transfer from paediatric to adult care demonstrates that the care pathways are wrong right at the heart of the NHS.
	The transition through adolescence to adulthood is physically difficult for any child, and often traumatic for parents. Changes in hormonal patterns, muscle size and density, changes in body weight, are all key factors in adolescent health. Children with epilepsy become normal teenagers. However, the interaction between physiological change and drug regimes is another factor which is not dealt with in this report but I believe ought to be the subject of further research.
	The nature of hospital investigations is another area for concern. None of the children in the study had notes indicating that a brain scan or EEG had been carried out. Yet we know that access to EEGs and MRI equipment is becoming wider all the time. One can only wonder whether lack of scanning was in any way related to the fact that 22 per cent of the children were not receiving AEDs and that drug management for children was inadequate.
	For families of children with epilepsy the lack of information about the risk that seizures could be fatal was unacceptably low. Use of specialist epilepsy nurses was rarely recorded and information about voluntary organisations and advocacy groups rarely issued to those people. Yet information about how to spot epilepsy, how to differentiate it from febrile convulsions and how to assist treatment with complementary lifestyles, such as ketogenic diets, are all important things which families need to know. Families are the key people who help people to live with epilepsy.
	For the children themselves inadequate drug management, inadequate access to specialist care and inadequate investigations, cumulatively led to deaths. Tragically 77 per cent of those child deaths could have been avoided with timely diagnosis.
	There is one other group of children who have not so far featured in our discussion. They are the children of adults who have epilepsy. Those children are often present when seizures take place and they may sometimes be the only people who are present when those seizures take place. It is my belief that when we talk about support to families and carers, children should be specifically included in support and training.
	In the time that I have been aware of epilepsy I have been horrified—and I do mean horrified—to learn of the difficulties that children and families have to face. Lack of information, huge disparities in service standards and lack of community support are common experience. Yet those people who are affected by this condition have come to operate almost like a successful underground network. Word spreads about which consultants are good; people pass experience by word of mouth; people act as advocates for each other. However, guessing the right treatment should not be a matter of chance; it should be the norm. This report is an important step to making that happen.
	Like other speakers, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am very heartened by the reaction of the Chief Medical Officer to the National Sentinel Audit. In August I will be searching the newspapers and the websites for the first sight of the promised action plan. It is heartening that the CMO has given a firm commitment to respond to this report. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I have no compunction about making suggestions about what I believe should be in it.
	I think it should include the following provisions: first, an undertaking that in each strategic health authority area there will be a neurological unit, properly resourced, to act as a centre of excellence for epilepsy to co-ordinate epilepsy services across each PCT within its area; secondly, a requirement for each of those units to implement and audit epilepsy diagnosis and management training for paediatric services in the tertiary sector and in the primary sector as part of the franchising process; thirdly, some of the resources announced in the budget for the NHS should, within an overall IT development strategy, include the setting up of an epilepsy management recording system in which the key factors highlighted in this report should be tracked; fourthly, a requirement for each PCT to include within its prospectus the establishment and maintenance of a medicine management programme to oversee regular reviews of AEDs for all people with epilepsy; fifthly, a programme of investment in information and advocacy services to be operated by the main voluntary organisations operating in this field: they are already extremely good but their services exist on a hand to mouth basis; sixthly, a programme of education for health and social care professionals working with children to be designed and implemented as soon as possible.
	I started with the story of a little boy and I want to finish with the story of another. He is a friend of mine and he has just had his 10th birthday. I will never forget the look of fear and confusion on his face one night several years ago when his mum had been rushed to hospital having suffered several fits. Happily for my friend his mum survived. Her condition was controlled and she has been seizure free for a number of years. However, it was only through the persistence of her family and the extraordinary lengths to which they went to get information. A family that had never read the Lancet started reading it and by enabling themselves to have the information they persisted and challenged the doctor. That family was very lucky.
	In 2002 with improved medication, sophisticated imaging technology this is, as this report shows, a real chance to decrease SUDEP dramatically. It may not take vast resources, just a willingness to change and development the interface between acute hospitals, primary care and users. This report shows how it can be done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will support the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and those charities, in what I believe is an extremely important piece of work.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on tabling the debate and on once again raising a subject in which I have a personal interest as president of the National Society for Epilepsy. The NSE at its headquarters in Chalfont St Peter is, I am proud to say, second to none in the world as a provider of assessment diagnosis and treatment for people with more complex types of epilepsy. Largely by virtue of that, but also thanks to an active partnership with the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queens Square, it is recognised as one of the foremost centres of excellence anywhere in the world for postgraduate neurological research and training. Alongside that, the society continues its longstanding role as a provider of long-term residential care and therapy for those whose epilepsy is particularly problematic.
	I mention the work of the national society before anything else, not just because I take what I hope is an understandable pride in it, but also because it is an example of the voluntary sector as its absolute best in a field where voluntary sector organisations are very much to the fore. It is regrettable, to say the least, that many of the problems which the noble Baroness and I raised in your Lordships' House just over two years ago, when we previously debated the subject, remain as unresolved and as pressing today as they were then. However, as she indicated, things are moving. I take real heart from the fact that in an annual report covering issues of obvious gravity—for example, health inequalities, high blood pressure, liver cirrhosis and E.coli—the Chief Medical Officer should also have devoted a most thoughtful chapter to epilepsy. This is a long overdue, though decidedly welcome, recognition of a condition which, in comparison to many others, has been sidelined in the public consciousness.
	How extraordinary that fact seems when we reflect that epilepsy is far and away the most common neurological condition of all, affecting as it does no fewer than one in 20 of us at some time in our lives. In England alone, 380,000 are afflicted with it. One cannot imagine until one has seen it or lived with it what a devastating effect epilepsy has on normal live and how fraught with dangers it can be if not properly treated. Of course, we all know the reasons for its Cinderella status. For centuries, those unfortunate enough to suffer from epilepsy have endured a social stigma and a lack of understanding which even in these supposedly enlightened times still persist in many quarters. Perhaps because of that, epilepsy has been an unfashionable area of clinical practice. As the noble Baroness said, we do not as a country have enough neurologists; not even half the optimum number. So how much more acutely we feel the lack of neurologists who have made epilepsy their speciality.
	What is sobering in the CMO's findings is the confirmation of what some of us have long suspected: that too many people are being misdiagnosed and receiving inappropriate treatment; too many never see a specialist of any kind; and too many are having to wait an inordinate length of time before they are diagnosed and treated. In today's context, these are basic shortcomings. They should not be happening, yet they are. And it is these deficiencies in care that almost certainly lie behind one of the worst and least talked about aspects of the condition—least talked about, that is, until this week—sudden death. The National Sentinel Clinical Audit of Epilepsy Related Death was published on Monday, as the noble Baroness said. The audit was commissioned with a specific aim: to establish whether deficiencies in the standard of clinical management of epilepsy or in the overall healthcare package could have contributed to deaths.
	We have heard the statistics about those deaths. In the UK, 1,000 people a year die from epilepsy and about half to two-thirds of those are victims of SUDEP. There is a correlation between the risk of death and the frequency of seizures, which is why the control of seizures is critically important. The conclusions of the report were that 39 per cent of adult deaths and 59 per cent of deaths in children where epilepsy was a factor are probably or potentially avoidable. Hospital care was felt to have shortcomings for a large proportion of those patients whose care before death was audited. Access to out-patient advice, drug management and appropriate investigations were all found to be inadequate. Record keeping was found to be very poor and many deaths involving a post mortem were inadequately investigated. On one level, those findings should appal us. However, on another the fact that these weaknesses in clinical services have been highlighted by the audit is something we should be grateful for. Indeed, like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Epilepsy Bereaved and the Joint Epilepsy Council for spearheading such an authoritative piece of work, which I am encouraged to note has been welcomed in unequivocal terms by the Chief Medical Officer.
	One feature of the audit stands out. Many of the shortcomings identified emanate from what one might term a lack of joined-up services for epilepsy patients: for example, a disconnect between primary and secondary care; a difficulty in accessing the right kind of specialist; a failure by hospitals to monitor out-patients properly; a failure by doctors to review patients and if necessary to re-refer, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out; and a lack of communication between A&E and primary care. Perhaps the most dismaying disconnect is between doctor and patient—the failure by doctors to discuss with the patient the risks of epilepsy and how to minimise them; a failure to mention the side-effects of drug treatment or to point the patient in the direction of support from voluntary organisations.
	It is easy to put that lack of communication down to the pressures under which GPs now operate, but I think it runs deeper than that. Many GPs have precious little understanding of the complexity of epilepsy as a clinical condition; nor do they often appreciate the huge burden of exclusion that epilepsy patients suffer socially, educationally and vocationally and the emotional turmoil to which that can lead. I am sorry to say that this part of the report spoke to me of a basic lack of willingness on the part of doctors to involve patients in decisions about their own care and a ducking out of confronting unpleasant truths.
	Although I do not want to keep blowing the trumpet of the NSE, these are all issues on which that organisation has placed great emphasis, not least during this week—National Epilepsy Week—when it has undertaken a direct mailing campaign on the theme of "living well with epilepsy". Information packs are being sent to hospitals, neurologists, specialist nurses, libraries and a whole range of places and individuals and the packs include a new leaflet called Epilepsy: risk which describes the risks that people with epilepsy face and how these can be minimised. It also emphasises how important it is to keep risk in perspective and to find a realistic balance between personal safety and personal freedom.
	What should happen now? As other noble Lords have pointed out, no fewer than five government reports since 1953 have highlighted serious deficiencies in provision for epilepsy and little has change. One might think that there were no guidelines for best practice in the care of epilepsy, but nothing could be less true. There are all sorts of excellent guidelines; they just need to be implemented. But at long last, I really do think that we have something to look forward to. The action plan promised by the CMO arising from the SUDEP audit will be a welcome next step. I hope, by the way, that the CMO will agree to meet the voluntary sector organisations as he takes his work forward. There is to be guidance from NICE which I hope will be informed by the modernisation board. In due course, although further away, there will be a national service framework for long-term conditions including epilepsy.
	All that is positive, but the momentum must not be lost. Epilepsy Bereaved described its report as a wake-up call and that is exactly as it should be. But it is a call to wake up and stay awake for not just the Government but for everyone involved in the care of this cruel and poorly served condition.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating the debate. It could hardly be better timed, coming as it does in the middle of National Epilepsy Week. I acknowledge my noble friend's important position as chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group. The group has an important part to play in raising the profile of treatment for this condition.
	The Chief Medical Officer's report in 2001, On the State of the Public Health, spoke clearly and trenchantly about the need to reinvigorate our commitment to improve epilepsy services. It did not duck the embarrassment of all governments over the past 20 years that we have not as yet cracked this matter in the way we feel we should have done. The report recognises that it has become a neglected area of clinical practice. As we acknowledge, more can and must be done to address the matter.
	I shall not speak at length about the condition. It has been well spoken about in terms of the rate of epilepsy—significant numbers of people in Britain suffer from the condition; the fact that it is usually controllable, but the risk of premature death is significantly higher than it is in those without the condition; and the fact that women face particular difficulties and vulnerabilities.
	The Government have, this week, welcomed the publication of the National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death report. The report was commissioned by the Government in response to representations from Epilepsy Bereaved. I should like to thank that organisation warmly for making the initial proposal and for project managing the audit. It is an excellent illustration of the significant contribution that a non-governmental organisation can make to the development of healthcare—it and others, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out.
	The starkness of the information about sudden unexpected death is both shocking and potentially a powerful lever to action. To see that perhaps 59 per cent of child deaths and 39 per cent of adult deaths—no one will quibble about the exact figures, but these are high proportions—were potentially or probably avoidable is a very significant issue which no government can afford to ignore. It could mean that, nationally and annually, as many as 500 people die when their deaths might have been deferred. That is clearly a powerful clarion call to us.
	Noble Lords have spoken clearly and accurately about what the audit indicated. In summary, it painted a picture of slow access to relevant specialists; a higher level of wrong diagnosis than one would want or expect; wrong medication and treatment regimes; and poor information and advice. All these added up to a picture of preventable deaths and needless suffering and anxiety for people who are exposed to the condition.
	Perhaps I may talk briefly about the remedial action that is under way and touch on the importance of the next three months in terms of driving that forward. First, in terms of access to a specialist, there is progress. In the quarter ending in March this year, the average wait to see a neurologist was just over 12 weeks. Averages, of course, have extremes. We clearly wish to see that figure reduced substantially, but it is better than it was.
	On improving the quality of treatment, what is significant is that we already know in large part how to diagnose and treat this illness. It is not one of the great unknown killers. The Joint Epilepsy Council's advice, to which reference has been made, is a compendium of best practice. The challenge is how to make sure that best practice is followed.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, remarked, work has already started on improving the quality of treatment. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence provides advice on best clinical practice to NHS clinicians, commissioners of NHS services and to patients and their carers. The sixth wave of NICE's work programme includes the development of a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy.
	There are also a number of new anti-epileptic drugs, and NICE is conducting a technology appraisal of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the new drugs in children and adults. The clinical guidance is due in spring 2004; the appraisal is due in autumn 2003.
	Turning to the point about a shortage of neurologists, the NHS Plan sets targets for 7,500 extra consultants, and we have invested in extra training places in neurology. The number of neurologists could be boosted by the Department of Health's global overseas recruitment campaign. I have said to officials in the department that we should make sure that neurologists are on our shopping list when we are looking abroad for relevant specialists to accelerate the speed at which we have adequate specialists.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked a series of questions. The latest figures indicate that there are 326 consultant neurologists, with five additional specialist registrars recommended for the year that has just ended. An additional 80 specialist neurologists are under training now. That should produce an increase of about 24 per cent by 2005. As at September 2000, there were 30 consultants in paediatric neurology. Although we do not collect detailed statistics on epilepsy nurse specialists, we estimate that about 100 are currently operational. No doubt the issues that the Chief Medical Officer will be addressing will be, first, whether anything can be done to accelerate the arrival of suitable consultant specialists and, secondly, whether those numbers look as though they are likely to be adequate to achieve the kind of access speed that one should expect when one has had a potential diagnosis from a GP of a condition as serious as epilepsy.
	Turning to epilepsy specialist nurses and other health professionals, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the potentially important role that nurse specialists can play in this and other areas. They provide an additional clinical resource. They have spearheaded the development of nurse-led and fast access clinics, monitoring seizure regimes and seizure control, support and information on aspects of medication and side effects and lifestyle precautions. The development of increasing numbers of nurse specialists in epilepsy, working appropriately with clinical teams, will play an important part in reducing diagnostic and treatment failures indicated in the audit report.
	I shall not repeat the data on the number of additional nurses or the number of additional therapists and health professionals who are already en route in training as part of the NHS Plan. The House will be aware that good progress is being made on those. Again, these are no doubt matters on which the Chief Medical Officer will wish to take a view in terms of whether this looks adequate as a supply development for raising the standards to the level that we want to achieve on epilepsy.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned scanners. I agree with her: there is, without doubt, a need to have faster access to MRI and CT scanning for epilepsy patients. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, the New Opportunities Fund has already provided for 54 new MRI scanners; and 21 additional CT scanners are coming through Treasury funding. In addition to those figures, the NHS Plan and the NHS Cancer Plan should produce a further 100 CT or MRI scanners by 2004 which are suitable for epilepsy scanning as well as for cancer scanning. Again, one would expect the action plan to check whether that number looked adequate to produce the kind of outcomes that we want in terms of access to suitable equipment.
	On voluntary organisations, I again thank the Joint Epilepsy Council for the work that it has done on this matter, and I acknowledge the role of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as president of the National Society for Epilepsy. He is quite right: this is a field in which so often in the past one has seen the voluntary sector playing a powerful role, almost punching way beyond the weight that would be expected of it compared to the national bodies on the other side—although perhaps I should move away from the boxing metaphors.
	In terms of the way forward, I cannot speak for the CMO's diary, but I am certain that the department would welcome meetings with the voluntary organisations rapidly in order to receive their input into the review that is on-going. To take that one stage further, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, gave a most interesting list of potential action plans. We shall study those.
	We would also want to issue an invitation to other specialist voluntary organisations that have views not so much on where we want to go—I think we are agreed on that—or on recruiting more neurologists and finding more MRI scanners, but on the difficult issue of how to shift the working practices of thousands of disparate professionals so that a condition which they may not frequently encounter is placed higher in their skill and understanding agenda. It is easy to issue circulars and advice but effectively shifting behaviour is the crucial issue.
	There is a National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions. I think that NSFs are one of the most profound policy developments in terms of achieving clarity about clinical and medical outcomes and thinking seriously about how to achieve those outcomes. As noble Lords know, there is a commitment to that. In February 2001, Alan Milburn announced the development of the Framework for Long Term Conditions. As noble Lords will remind me, it will not be completed until 2005, which is why we have to have action as the CMO has indicated.
	Like other noble Lords, I celebrate the role of the CMO in making a strong and clear commitment. From his almost unique position, he has said, "This will not do. We have to move forward. We must stop producing reports and turn it into effective action".
	As time is pressing, I shall have to take the points very rapidly. The report raises probably five key issues, the first of which is access to specialists. I have talked about that and about what some of the checks would be. The next is advice to patients and health professionals on the treatment for epilepsy. Clearly NICE will have important work to do on developing effective advice on medication and seizure-control regimes and ensuring that it is taken up. As for access to investigations, we have spoken about EEG, MRI and CT scanners. I think that no more needs to be said at this stage on that.
	How best to manage shared care between GPs and hospital specialists is the really difficult issue which we must all focus on if we are going to shift practice. Perhaps we need to ensure the development of clinical networks and clinical leaders who exhibit some of the excellence of best practice that others can learn from. I am sure that nurse specialists will play a significant role in such initiatives.
	The last point is information to patients and their families. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, powerfully made the point that patients and their parents must be treated as responsible, intelligent adults who have a right to be informed of the risks of, for example, sudden death. The failure to provide such information is clearly a fundamental gap in any form of healthcare. We have to think how we can significantly improve the information and advice provided to patients and their families not only about the clinical condition or medical risks, but about how to live effective lives while carrying the condition.
	The NHS Modernisation Agency will have an important role to play in considering whether there are any lessons for the design and promotion of good practice. However, the dissemination of good practice to front-line clinicians and nurses is the most crucial issue. Although no government of the past 20 or 30 years can hold up their head with pride on this issue, we have all been given an effective wake-up call by the audit, the CMO's commitment to move forward on it and the voluntary organisations' commitment—if I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, correctly—to continue to work in partnership in moving from rhetoric to results. I very much welcome that commitment and hope that we will be able to turn it into effective dialogues and then into effective action.
	Our commitment is underpinned by the extra funding provided in the Budget. Many of the steps we are taking would not be possible without that significant increase of 7½ per cent above inflation over the next five years. I would certainly never like to have to come to the House and cite insufficient funding as a reason for not delivering appropriate remedies. I welcome this debate and I very much look forward to "progress debates" and being brought to account by the House in positive ways.

Education Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 49.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 222:
	Page 33, line 29, after "pupil," insert—
	( ) requiring any child in public care to be represented in the event of any exclusion under subsection (1) or (2), for that representation to be independent of the local education authority and funded through the Community Legal Service in the matter of an appeal under subsection (3)(c), and for representations to be made on behalf of such a child at every suitable opportunity"

Lord Lucas: In moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 223A.
	We have managed to deal with 11 groups in the past four hours. At that rate, I reckon that we have 10 hours to go. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to think that we shall rise earlier. I am delighted.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Over my dead body.

Lord Lucas: I would not wish that, so I shall make good speed.
	These two amendments are not in any way connected. Amendment No. 222 addresses the issue of how a child in care should be represented, given the fact that essentially local authority tribunals will decide the fate of such children who appear before them. As local authorities are also essentially the parent of such children and the body that should prepare for and make representations to the tribunal, we should consider a separation of the functions and provide children in care with a route for independent representation. The local authority should not be forced to act as both the child's advocate and his judge.
	Amendment No. 223A addresses the issue of undiagnosed special needs. It suggests that, in their guidance and regulations, the Government might find it convenient to suggest to local authorities that children permanently excluded for behavioural problems who have not had an assessment of special educational needs should perhaps have such an assessment. It is something that the local authority should consider. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support Amendment No. 222, which is supported also by the British Psychological Society and the Who Cares Trust. The amendment would allow for the representation of children in public care by guardians, educational psychologists or other care professionals. It would be a great improvement on current arrangements.
	I should perhaps take this opportunity to voice some concern about an earlier reply on the independent appeal panels to which the children will be sent. There is considerable concerns about the quality of decisions made by the panels, which were very well outlined in the article by Professor Neville Harris. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss those concerns before Report.
	I shall also speak briefly to Amendment No. 223A. I feel very sympathetic towards the provision although I have not had a chance to study it in detail. I hope that it will receive a very sympathetic hearing from the Minister.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I sympathise with the intention behind Amendment No. 222. As I have said both several times today and previously in the House, children in public care are a particularly vulnerable group and are particularly vulnerable to exclusion. We believe that it must be for the person or organisation with parental responsibility for the child to decide whether to make representations about the child's exclusion and to determine the content of those representations. However, there would be severe practical difficulties in accepting the proposal in full, including in relation to the timetable. Additionally, the effect of introducing publicly funded representatives into the exclusion procedure for children in public care or children in other categories would inevitably be to make hearings much more like judicial proceedings. That is something we wish to avoid. A degree of formality is, of course, needed but not to the extent that the hearing resembles a court hearing.
	However, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are very aware of the risk of children in public care being excluded from school and of the need to ensure that they are properly represented at appeal hearings. That is why the joint DFES/Department of Health guidance on the education of children and young people in public care points out that local authorities as corporate parents are expected to act as champions for the children in their care and as advocates for their needs in exactly the same way as a parent.
	We have also included guidance on children in public care for the first time in the draft revised guidance on exclusion published in January. That makes clear that in cases where a child in care is excluded, the person having parental responsibility for, or care of, the child will have the right to make representations and appeal and should pursue those rights if there are grounds for appeal.
	I turn to Amendment No. 223A which we believe is unnecessary as it replicates the provisions already contained in Section 323 of the Education Act 1996. That section places a duty on local education authorities to assess a child's special educational needs where the authority is of the opinion that a child for whom it is responsible has, or probably has, special educational needs which call for special educational provision. That duty exists and I see no merit in repeating the provision in regulations governing exclusion.
	As I said earlier this evening, I acknowledge that children with special educational needs are disproportionately excluded. That is a problem that we intend to address. I have already invited the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to talk with us further about the issues of advocacy and the revised guidance. We intend to address that matter in the revised guidance on exclusions to be issued later this year. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I suspect that the arguments about the constitution of the appeal panel and representation in front of it will rumble on for some long while. We are being left with a system which has, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, a number of well known disadvantages and malfunctions. That will result in a continuing flow of protest over the years. We may eventually end up with a better system.
	So far as the local authorities' requirement to assess is concerned, what we face—it is evidenced by the number of people with special educational needs who end up in prison—is a system where people with special educational needs slip through the net. One of the main ways they slip through the net is through becoming disenchanted with school, being excluded from school and otherwise dropping out of the system. It seems to me that it is important that where a step is being taken in regard to a child, such as exclusion, and there are symptoms present which could well be symptoms—as many behavioural symptoms are—of an underlying special educational need, that there is a duty to look again at that particular point at whether that excluded child should be assessed. I know that there is a general duty, but should it not, at least in guidance, be made clear to local education authorities that this is a point in the life of a child when the local education authority should have particular regard to whether there might be an underlying SEN? However, I am grateful—

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. On the legal side of things, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a point made by Professor Neville Harris in his book; that is, that parents in middle class occupational groups aged under 50 who had received advice, especially legal advice, were far more likely to bring an appeal than others. That again seems to suggest the importance of having some legal involvement for these particularly vulnerable children. They should have access to the community legal service.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I say to the noble Earl, as I think I said earlier, that we are considering the whole question of advocacy. The noble Earl referred to the adoption Bill that is going through another place. We are looking across government to ensure that we look at the needs of this particularly vulnerable group in terms of advocacy. We shall, of course, keep the noble Earl in touch with those developments. We take that point on board.

Lord Lucas: Practice and experience show that there is increasing use of advocacy all through the system at the moment as this is such a crucial matter. Those who can afford it are routinely resorting to solicitors. What we are doing is depriving those who cannot afford that of equal attention. However, as I say, I believe that we shall return to this matter over the years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 not moved.]
	Clause 49 agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 228:
	After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
	"PARENTAL BEHAVIOUR
	(1) If a parent or guardian of a child registered at a maintained school behaves in a manner which—
	(a) exhibits violence towards a member of staff of that school, whether or not on the premises of the school, or
	(b) disrupts the normal functioning of the school,
	he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(3) Section 8 (parenting orders) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows—
	(a) after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted—
	(e) a person is convicted of an offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002";
	(b) in subsection (2) after "444" there is inserted "of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) or section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"; and
	(c) after subsection (6)(d) there is inserted—
	"(d) in a case falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, the commission of any further offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"."

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 228 aims to introduce an amendment to a criminal justice Act—Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—in order to make it an offence if parents behave violently towards a member of staff on or off school premises, or if they should disrupt the normal functioning of a school. In response to the growing number of violent attacks on teachers and other staff and the growing number of incidents where the normal functioning of a school is disrupted by the behaviour of parents, the Government have pledged publicly on a number of occasions that they intend to extend parenting orders. My amendment does just that. One reason for the delay given by Her Majesty's Government has been the lack of parliamentary time in the legislative programme. By accepting the amendment it would not be necessary to wait for a relevant criminal justice Bill.
	In drafting the amendment I took advice from the Public Bill Office and I tabled a Question for Written Answer which was answered by the Minister about which statute would require amending to give effect to the aims of the amendment. The answer was that it should be Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is what I have done.
	This is a serious problem in our schools. Only today we heard about the increasing level of violence of pupils towards teachers and other members of staff and, of course, towards each other. Sadly, often those children's parents then come to the school and behave violently. We are hearing more often teachers themselves say how unprotected they feel in school. It was most depressing to learn that policemen are now being put on school campuses. We should not be proud of the fact that we are having to offer police protection in our schools. Sadly, it is a sign of the times. The pressures on teachers are considerable enough without their having to worry about their physical protection while teaching in school.
	I hope that the Minister will accept from me that this is a straightforward amendment. There are no politics involved. I believe that Members on all sides of the Committee want to do what they can to protect teachers. We know that there is a deficit here. Certainly, the National Association of Head Teachers believes that there is a serious deficit in this regard. The Government have promised that association that parenting orders will be extended. We on this side of the Chamber have also been promised that parenting orders will be extended.
	I have done the legwork for the Government. It would be a simple matter to accept the amendment. Teachers deserve no less. They should be protected and they should be free to get on with what they do best; that is, teaching our children, safe in the knowledge that if parents cause harm or disrupt the normal functioning of the school on school premises or within its vicinity, a penalty will apply. I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: I should like to comment on the issue of parenting orders. Having been the founder and for eight years the chairman of the Parenting Education and Support Forum, I was interested to hear at a conference a few weeks ago my erstwhile colleagues say that although they had been strongly opposed to parenting orders when they were introduced, they now found that many parents subject to parenting orders thanked them profusely and were delighted with the information that they received. It is encouraging to think in terms of parenting orders being acceptable and successful in many cases.
	In reality, while I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in tabling the amendment, I think that in the real world the only thing that will make a serious difference to parents' attitudes to schools is efficient and proper school outreach to parents which, again, I regret to say, will require additional resources. However, if parents understand what schools are trying to do and are encouraged to be sympathetic about what they are doing and even to participate in decision-making, there would be much less trouble with parents.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I have some reservations about the provisions, partly because I have the gravest reservations about the utility of putting parents in prison because of the behaviour of their children. Our prisons are already far too full; it is an utterly useless thing to do.

Baroness Blatch: I should correct the noble Baroness. My amendment relates not the behaviour of the children but to parents who are violent. It has nothing to do with the violence of children. I cited the increasing number of violent children who are turning into violent parents. The amendment relates to violent parents.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I agree that the behaviour of some parents is appalling. Anything that one can do to restrain that is an advantage.
	I strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We need to develop an outreach mechanism that can help parents in the community. Many of them need help with their parenting skills.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the important question of dealing with the small number of parents who disrupt school life by being violent in schools or by threatening school staff in or out of school. The Government view that matter with the utmost seriousness. I make it clear that there is never any excuse for a parent to abuse, either physically or verbally, a teacher or anyone who works in our schools. Unfortunately, we know that that happens. We are very clear however: we expect the toughest possible line to be taken against such behaviour.
	In the vast majority of cases, as Members of the Committee will know, relations between school and parents are mutually respectful and good. That is how they should be. The outreach referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, works well. It is inconceivable to most of us that any member of the school community should run the risk of being subject to violence at work. It is our very firm opinion that anyone who presents that sort of risk should expect to be punished.
	Last autumn, the department consulted on extending the use of parenting orders. We had in mind then that disruptive or violent behaviour in school by a pupil resulting in a pattern of fixed period exclusions or permanent exclusion could be a "trigger" for initiating court proceedings, leading to a parenting order being imposed. We have made it clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that we intend to pursue this option when a suitable criminal justice Bill is available.
	We said in the consultation paper that there was an issue about whether parenting orders should apply where the parent's behaviour, not the child's—the noble Baroness pointed that out—is causing a problem. Seventy-eight per cent of those consulted—104 out of 134 respondents last autumn—opposed extending parenting orders to cover parental behaviour. That was because parenting orders are fundamentally about improving parenting, not about punishing people for violence.
	However, we are absolutely clear that we want school staff to be protected and violent parents to be prosecuted. Let me remind the Committee of the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when she addressed the Easter conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. She reminded the conference that there is already a range of ways in which bad parental behaviour can be punished: parents causing a disturbance can be removed from school premises and prosecuted by the local education authority; parents assaulting a teacher or causing damage to schoolteachers' property can be charged under criminal legislation—for example, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or the Criminal Damage Act 1971; or anti-social behaviour orders can be imposed. If someone causes harassment, he can be taken before the courts under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That legislation offers a range of sanctions, including custodial sentences and fines that are greater than those proposed in the amendment. So we are clear that the powers are already there.
	As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said to the ATL conference, we do not need new legislation; we just need the will to use the powers that already exist. She made the position very clear. Employers must take whatever action is necessary to protect teachers, including prosecution. Where teachers are assaulted or threatened in the course of their duties, employers already have the power to act decisively. We want them to do so. This is a real opportunity for LEAs to lead.
	We are now taking active steps to make the existing remedies better known and to promote their use, so that action can be taken against disruptive parents at the first opportunity. We have had very positive discussions about that approach with the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers. We are looking to ensure that schools have the support to ensure that rapid and tough action can be taken against anyone who threatens their staff or their smooth operation.
	I have a final word on the issue of police in schools. Members of the Committee may be familiar with examples of police in schools, but I strongly recommend them to visit schools. Police working in schools are seeking to enhance the relations between the community, the school and the police. They provide a real service to children—they are often children who are trying to lead the kind of life that we wish them to lead. Policemen and policewomen talk with the children, are involved in their lives and help them to understand, perhaps in a citizenship role, their place. That is very much the role that we envisage. It is not about providing a protection service in that sense.
	I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for moving this amendment, which has given the Committee an opportunity to unite in saying that we expect teachers and other staff in schools to be protected to the fullest extent of the law. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees with me that, given the range of powers that can be used and the severity of the penalties available, we must now concentrate our energies on ensuring that those powers are used as fully as possible to give all our teachers and staff the protection that they deserve. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I cannot describe how disappointed I am with that answer. The Government gave a promise that they would extend parenting orders—they did not say that that would be put out for consultation or that they might be extended. The NAHT and other teachers accepted the promise that they would be extended. All that was stopping the Government was a legislative opportunity to do so. We have provided such an opportunity, but what did the Government say? That the law is all right as it is, that teachers are fully protected under the law and that all that we need to do is to enforce the law. Teachers do not believe that. They do not feel protected and on a daily basis teachers up and down the country are being physically hurt by violent parents. We have left them undefended.
	It is all very well for the Minister to say that existing law should be used. The Government have done nothing about finding ways of encouraging magistrates and the courts to use the law more effectively or to encourage the police to use their powers where necessary, to protect teachers. Instead, the Government say that they will extend parenting orders.
	Tonight, the Minister has elegantly danced on a pin in finding ways to avoid honouring the Government's pledge. I expect the Government to match their words with deeds. I am deeply disappointed. The issue is too important to run a vote at this time of the evening, knowing that the Government have their army corralled outside. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again about the Government's promise to teachers and the protection that they deserve. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 50 [Attendance targets]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: Any target for school attendance should not fall below 100 per cent. At even the best-run schools, some children will fall ill while others may suffer a death in the family. By any yardstick and for totally understandable reasons, some absences will be justified. However, we are talking not about the actuality but the target. The expectation should be 100 per cent attendance. Can one imagine a school being given an attendance target of 70 per cent, 80 per cent or 90 per cent? No school in the land should be set an attendance target anything below 100 per cent.
	I was part of the ministerial team that introduced the publication of absenteeism figures, starting with unauthorised absences. It quickly became clear that schools throughout the land had varying attitudes to children being absent. Some were lax. Provided a parent telephoned or sent a note after the child's absence or if the child looked sufficiently pleadingly into the eyes of the teacher, that was acceptable to some schools as an authorised absence. I managed to persuade my ministerial colleagues that it would be a good idea to publish publicly figures of authorised and unauthorised absences, so that people could identify how relaxed or rigid a regime a school operated and for Ofsted to make a judgment about a school's absenteeism policy management.
	There is positively no defence for allowing a school to have an attendance target of anything less than 100 per cent.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I could not agree more that schools should aspire to 100 per cent attendance—although, as the noble Baroness said, there are times when children suffer bereavement, illness or other circumstances. We are enabling the Secretary of State to set targets aimed at reducing all types of absenteeism—not only those unauthorised by the school.
	In the last academic year, 0.7 per cent of half days were missed due to unauthorised absenteeism but 6.5 per cent of half days were missed due to authorised absenteeism—which accounts for 90 per cent of all absences from school. A large proportion of children stopped by truancy patrols are with an adult. According to Ofsted, the figure is about 80 per cent. Your Lordships may have read press reports in recent days in which one excuse for school absenteeism given by a family was that they were out to buy a hamster.
	Children who are out of school are missing out on their education. I am sure that every Member of the Committee agrees that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Good attendance is crucial if children are to achieve at school. The emphasis should not be on why the child is absent from school but on making sure that he or she gets back to school as soon as possible. It is important that children are taught the importance of good attendance if they are to succeed later in life. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that employers might ask for an applicant's school attendance record when assessing his or her suitability for a job.
	Appropriate targets play a vital role in school improvement and raising community awareness of the issue. Many schools already work hard to improve attendance and set their own targets with their local education welfare service. It is important that schools have the right incentive to take all types of absence seriously. Therefore, a requirement that targets are set for schools with above-average absence figures ensures that they put their energy into working with parents and with the education welfare service in getting children back to school instead of debating whether or not an absence should be authorised.
	The targets will not be additional to existing targets. Instead, they represent a widening focus that we believe will be welcomed by schools and local education authorities. That is why we have moved to a target for all absences. Of course, I accept what the noble Baroness said. We want every school to move towards 100 per cent attendance. The clause seeks to move schools from having high levels of absence into a better position. It seeks to raise awareness, get schools to focus on the issues, work with the education welfare service and move beyond.
	Of course, our ultimate objective is for every child in school to learn and develop to the best of his ability. I hope that the Committee will see that the clause forms an important part of our plans to raise the level of attainment of all pupils. It should, therefore, stand part of the Bill.

Lord Lucas: I hoped that the noble Baroness would say something about her plans—or the Government's plans—to give schools the necessary powers to do something about the problem of absence. Schools can add something to their newsletters to parents or send a note home with little Jimmy saying that it would be nice to see him in school more often. But it is the culture among many parents to take a relaxed attitude to the presence of a child in school. When they want to buy a hamster or take a skiing holiday off-peak or get some winter sun, they take little Jimmy out of school and off they go. Unless that occurs in the middle of an exam period, it does not really matter because being out of school provides just as good an education as being in school. Those are all things that parents say.
	That is a problem which the school can do nothing about. No sanctions are available. There is no sanction that anyone will lay against such parents; nor do schools have any way of offering rewards. If a target is set, surely there must be some way of it being reached.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We do have sanctions against parents. In recent days, there was a very high-profile case of a parent who did not send her children to school. The result was that that parent was imprisoned. As I mentioned earlier this evening, I was in Stevenage last week. A head teacher there said to me that two children whom he had had great difficulty in getting back into school reappeared last Monday morning. When asked why, the children said, "Because our mum does not want to go to prison".
	We have sanctions. The education welfare service does a good job in working with schools—it is often based in schools—to develop links with such families in order to get their children into school. It is very important that we ensure that the service works well. But, ultimately, sanctions do exist. They are an issue that we must consider, and local education authorities do so.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has given me no reason whatever to support the idea of a school having a target lower than 100 per cent. She said that the Government want to set targets in order to enable the Secretary of State to reduce all types of school absence. In that case, let us give them a target of 100 per cent and ask them why they have not achieved it. They may or may not have very good reasons for not doing so. But the judgment can be made. As for the child who was found with a parent buying a hamster, that parent was breaking the law and should be dealt with.
	The Government appear to be taking some credit for the fact that, for the first time in a very long while, one parent has been imprisoned. I agree with the noble Baroness that that has had quite an impact throughout the parent and pupil communities. However, it came about through the persistence of the local authority. One has only to look at the catalogue of attempts that had been made to ask that parent to comply with her obligation to send her children to school to see that the local authority reached the end of the line in trying to persuade her to be compliant.
	However, I still say that if only 0.7 per cent of absences are unauthorised and 6.5 per cent are authorised, then reducing the target below 100 per cent is almost to condone the rate of absence. It seems to me that one answer is to make the target 100 per cent and to make schools accountable for the absences that fall short of that target. The Government have put up no argument or defence whatever for their proposal.
	I want to relate an anecdote in order to express my incredulity at this clause. I was once involved in contemplating the privatisation of cleaning and caretaking in schools. As part of the prerequisite work for that, I discovered to my horror that a bonus scheme was operating in the local authority. The scheme paid a bonus to anyone who worked at a level above 70 per cent effort. I then asked the natural follow-on question of how many people had received the bonus. I discovered that everyone had received it. The shock to me was that it was considered the norm to work at 70 per cent effort. I do not know any other norm than working flat out. One does one's best, and if one does not expect people to do their best they will not. That pertains particularly to children. The more one expects of children the more children will rise to the challenge and want to deliver.
	In the case of people who were expected to work at 70 per cent, everyone received the bonus because there was no measuring system in place. The exercise is worth undertaking if only to find that out. I believe that the target should be 100 per cent. There should be no bureaucracy. The Government suggest that the local authority liaises with every school. The noble Baroness has just said that the local authority, in conjunction with the school, should arrive at a target and monitor whether that target is met. That appears to me to be an absolute nonsense. Through my amendment I advocate the removal of the clause from the Bill. I believe that the Government should expect all children to attend school on each school day of the year.
	In view of the existence of published information, Ofsted inspections, the LEA's duty to see that children are in school and the parents' obligation to get their children to school, in relation to which a raft of measures can be taken by the courts, the police and support systems, I simply cannot understand the Government's reluctance to remove this clause from the Bill and their insistence on this idiotic policy.

Lord Dearing: I have great sympathy with the principle raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The objective should be for all children to attend school 100 per cent of the time. However, as a manager, I am conscious that to be told in difficult circumstances that 100 per cent is the target may cause people to give up. With a highly transient, difficult population teachers may say to themselves, "The legislators do not live in the same world as the people of this borough".
	I believe that it will help to say on the way to that desired objective of 100 per cent, "Your target is to move towards that to a certain extent". In that situation I can see teachers rallying around the head teacher in support. As a manager, I fear that if one asks too much, people will put up their hands and not try. While agreeing with the principle put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I realise that the Government are adopting a practical and workable policy that will move matters in the direction that we all want.

Baroness Blatch: In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has said, many schools that are struggling against the odds are damned often by reputation and often by people knowing that it is not the best school in the town. If I, as a parent, moved into an area and looked for a school for my children and I knew that the target for attendance at a school was less than 100 per cent—it may be 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent—I would be very concerned about sending my children there. I would know that a certain percentage of the children at that school would not be expected to be in school at any given time.
	I agree with the noble Lord that there is a problem and that we should approach it from a different angle. Such a school should be given as much support as possible to help it to fight against those odds even though it has a high percentage of non-compliant parents in the area. One should do that through support systems, through liaising with the police, and through finding innovative ways of trying to connect with the parents and remind them of their obligations. Setting a target below 100 per cent will damn a school and that will certainly not achieve the objective.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We are trying to find a mechanism. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely right to say that we want 100 per cent of children in school at all times. Some of our schools, in challenging circumstances, have a real difficulty with the issue of school attendance. We are trying to move them towards that figure. The purpose of this clause is to remove the difference between "unauthorised" and "authorised" in order to create one target on attendance. We have spoken to education authorities and schools, which have welcomed that move.
	With regard to whether targets work, there is always a case of the jury being out. We know, however, that as a result of the targets that we set, in the past two years the level of unauthorised absence in primary schools has decreased in 44 local education authorities. We also know that the level of unauthorised absence in secondary schools has decreased in 60 local education authorities. It is an ongoing process that is being used as a means of ensuring that we work closely with our schools and put in the right kind of support mechanisms. In that respect, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	It is important to encourage schools to focus on the issue of moving towards the target to which we all aspire and to put in place targets that they will try to meet to ensure that children are in school. I do not believe that the noble Baroness and I are in disagreement about this matter. It is a mechanical process: a way of ensuring, on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing has said, that we have in place targets towards which schools can work. On that basis, I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: I still profoundly disagree with the Minister. It is not right to say that we are both coming from the same place. I do not believe that we are. The intention of this clause is to include authorised as well as unauthorised absences. The Minister has already said that a number of remedies are in place for dealing with parents who do not send their children to school.
	If we are referring to schools that find it difficult to get children to attend because their parents are not complying, by either condoning the absence, failing to alert the school of problems, or not meeting their own obligations to get their children to school, that is the issue to be tackled. The schools would welcome tougher action being taken with parents who are non-compliant in relation to sending their children to school. However, it seems bizarre to put the target on the school by saying, "You as a school must expect to achieve only 80 or 90 per cent attendance". The target should be 100 per cent. If the parents are at fault in not sending their children to school, that is the problem that the Government should address.
	I withdraw my opposition to the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill, but we shall certainly return to it at another stage.

Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Power of LEA to provide for governing body to consist of interim executive members]:

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: moved Amendment No. 229:
	Page 37, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In the case of a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school, before giving consent to the exercise by the local education authority of the powers conferred by subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate diocesan authority."

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 229 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. At first glance, it may seem a strange amendment to move in the light of subsection (2)(4) of the clause, but I hope to explain that in a moment.
	I say at the outset that nothing in this amendment goes against the thrust of this clause in the Bill. If there are problems in the governing body of a voluntary-aided school that lead to the failure of a school, they need to be addressed. But we look for some assurance at the outset of the process. It seems to us that before consenting to the process beginning and taking up the point made by the local authority, the Secretary of State should at least check out this matter with the appropriate diocesan authorities.
	Although in this country relations are excellent between most local authorities and the governors of voluntary-aided schools, sadly there are cases in which, for doctrinaire or whatever other reasons, some local authorities try to make life quite difficult for the governors of voluntary-aided schools. In those rare circumstances where in our judgment there may be a slightly unworthy motive, the Secretary of State should be required, as it were, on the face of the Bill at least to consult with the diocesan authority in order to check out the facts before acceding to the request of the local authority.
	I re-emphasise that there is nothing in this amendment which runs against the thrust of Clause 54 in trying to impose, where appropriate, an interim executive board. However, I hope that in her reply the Minister will give me the small amendment that I seek in order that the governors of aided schools may feel rather more secure than they do with the clause as presently drafted. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am very happy to support the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. The point that he made about the non-controversial nature of this clause is one with which I agree. It is right that the Government should take these powers to deal with the imposition of interim executive members in the case of the schools that are mentioned in subsection (1) and also in other subsections. However, it does not spell out exactly what would happen in the case of diocesan schools. I know that not only the Church of England authorities but also the Catholic Education Service are concerned about what would happen in such circumstances.
	I hope that the Government are minded to accept the spirit of this amendment. If the Minister believes that the first line of consultation, as it were, should be with the local education authority, perhaps he could tell the Committee what would happen in the case of the sort of dispute outlined by the right reverend Prelate. If there were to be a dispute, can the Minister say who would be the point of reference in those circumstances? Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, the Minister's clarification in that respect could meet some of the concerns that have been raised.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is any issue between us—I do not believe that there is—it is not whether there should be consultation with diocesan authorities, but who does the consultation. There are two ways in which interim executive members can be appointed to replace the governing body of a school where that school requires "special measures" or has "serious weaknesses": first, by the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, and following consultation. Consultation will include the appropriate diocesan authority in the case of a foundation or voluntary school, which is Church of England, Church of Wales or a Roman Catholic School. The second possibility is appointment by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the relevant diocesan authority and others, unless the LEA has already undertaken this consultation.
	We have not been debating these interim executive measures because no other amendments have been tabled on the subject. The intention is that such powers should be used only in exceptional circumstances where there is a need for prompt, rapid intervention to improve standards. On the first option, the Secretary of State will expect to be informed about the LEA's consultation on appointing interim executive members in considering the LEA's case. If there is any concern that the appropriate diocesan authority has not been consulted adequately, the Secretary of State will request further details, asking for sight of any correspondence or notes of meetings, or will undertake further consultation.
	We do not wish to impose more work on the diocesan authorities by legislating for the duplication of consultation. I hope that the assurance I have given—namely, that the interests of diocesan authorities are already protected in either case—will meet the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I thank the Minister for his reply, which goes some way towards reassuring those whom I represent that the Secretary of State will take due note that the consultation has taken place and that, before giving whatever consent is necessary, will investigate the situation in some way. I hope that my understanding of the Minister's response is correct. In the knowledge that that assurance is on the record, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
	Schedule 6 agreed to.
	Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Power to require LEA to obtain advisory services]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 230:
	Page 41, line 11, at beginning insert "following consultation with the local education authority,"

Baroness Walmsley: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 231.
	Clause 60 provides for the Secretary of State to intervene and direct the LEA to introduce a partner to assist with turning round a failing school or schools if insufficient progress has been made. However, there is nothing in the Bill to require that the Secretary of State must consult with the LEA in such a situation.
	The exercise of those powers will have clear financial implications for the LEA, especially when a lot of money is to be delegated to the new partner. It will also have implications for other schools for which the LEA has responsibility as it could put in jeopardy the necessary critical mass of the authority's advisory and other services if a large chunk of those services were taken over by a partner.
	It is therefore surprising that the Government think it appropriate for the Secretary of State to interfere with local decision making to such an extent without even ascertaining from the authority what the knock-on effects of such action might be. The Minister may say that of course such consultations will take place, and perhaps with the current Secretary of State, they would. However, we shall not always have the present Secretary of State, so it is necessary to put this protection into the Bill for the benefit of other schools in the area. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I shall explain in what circumstances those powers could be used. I emphasise that it is certainly our intention that they should be used extremely rarely.
	I say that in the context that our policy in tackling failing schools is working well. In the past few years more than 900 schools have been turned round, and I pay tribute to the role of local education authorities in that achievement.
	Many LEAs have established effective partnership arrangements. The power in the clause to direct an LEA to involve a partner to support the governing body of a weak or failing school, or to support the LEA itself, will be needed in only a very small number of cases, where the LEA has chosen not to do so itself.
	There are two possible instances when the power could be required. First, when an LEA is preparing an action plan following an Ofsted inspection which has judged a school as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures, it may be necessary to require the LEA to involve external support where action is clearly necessary and the authority has no plans to take such action. Alternatively, a direction may be necessary later in the process if it becomes clear that an LEA's recovery plan is not working.
	In either case, we shall have been working closely with the LEA in question to help it to tackle the difficulties that it faces. Therefore, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will have sufficient knowledge to be satisfied that a direction is the appropriate course of action. There will have been detailed discussions throughout this time, which I should have thought would go rather further than consultation in the formal sense. Therefore, we do not need a further requirement to consult. That would slow down the process of securing for children the quality of education that is their right.
	I turn to Amendment No. 231. We expect the Secretary of State to use her power under Clause 60 to direct the LEA to obtain advisory services. We expect that to happen only rarely. The fact that it has happened in my borough of Haringey is perhaps irrelevant to the argument. We propose to provide guidance on the way in which any local education authority might use external partners to provide advice on turning failing schools around.
	We want the guidance to be as helpful as possible and we believe that LEAs will find examples of model contracts more useful than detailed guidance about the terms and conditions which the Secretary of State might include in a direction. We hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will agree that that sort of guidance would be preferable to a formal direction.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might have to use such powers—hopefully rarely—it would probably mean almost a complete breakdown in relations between the DfES and the local authority in question. I very much hope that the Minister is right and that it would be used rarely. I shall read his remarks with great care and possibly return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 232:
	Page 41, line 34, leave out "an order of mandamus" and insert "a mandatory order"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 232 is a drafting amendment which brings the matter up to date. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 61 agreed to.
	Clause 62 [Academies]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 233:
	Page 42, line 42, after "State" insert "(in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)"

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Clause 62 and the succeeding clauses up to and including Clause 67 apply to England only. Some of us in Wales feel that it may be losing out by not opting in to some of these clauses and some of the possibilities that they contain.
	Amendment No. 233 seeks to remedy this short-sightedness, particularly in relation to academies. The amendment, I hasten to add, is only indicative, in the sense that if it were to be accepted, other consequential amendments would be necessary in the clause. We have not littered the Marshalled List with them at this stage.
	The argument is very clear. Here is a proposal that the Secretary of State may enter an agreement with a person to establish and maintain an independent school with a broad curriculum but with an emphasis on a particular subject area. That we know represents a popular approach to education among young people with a special interest. They take an interest in their schooling. With that kind of interest, there is something to combat the inertia that we all remember from our schooldays.
	Such youngsters in Wales are to be denied any such opportunity and so are the potential patrons of such schools. And why? It is because the Welsh education system and the Welsh proposals in the Bill are anachronistic, backward instead of forward looking and antipathetic to novelty and change. The ethos is static, self-perpetuating, anti-enterprise and, frankly, wrong. New ideas and concepts are anathema.
	It will be said that there is no demand for such schools as these academies and that there is no queue of patrons at the Minister's door. There certainly will not be now that the door has been firmly slammed in their faces. I am sorry to say that the best that we can hope for in Wales is that news of the success of these academies will percolate down in time and that someone will press for such academies to be established there. As the Bill stands, it will not be possible for Wales to benefit unless the amendment is accepted making Clause 62 apply to Wales as well as England. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 234, 237, 238, 242, 243 and 245. This series of amendments all relate to Clause 62 which deals with the setting up of new academies. Each one is, however, slightly different and addresses a slightly different issue. I shall address each one of them separately.
	Amendment No. 234 seeks to ensure consistency of terminology. The 1988 Act's,
	"a balanced and broadly based curriculum",
	is well understood by teachers as one which includes a range of individual subjects which collectively covers all experiential disciplines and one which all pupils have access to. All pupils follow one curriculum differentiated accordingly to ensure equal access.
	The 1988 Conservative Government at the time clearly envisaged the national curriculum as providing the necessary breadth and balance. But with the need for sex education and careers education, it was always clear to teachers that a balanced and broadly-based curriculum referred to the national curriculum plus the wider school curriculum. The current Government appear to view a "broad" curriculum as something different again. In the proposals for 14 to 19s and the White Paper, terms like "balance", "breadth" and "entitlement" are used but clearly do not have the same meaning as before.
	The Government appear to envisage that a "broad" curriculum will mean something different to different pupils. The amendment is intended to find out exactly what they mean. We suggest that the Bill refers to the Act by inserting the words,
	"curriculum which satisfies the requirements of section 74(1)".
	Amendment No. 237 is intended to probe the Government to clarify pupil admissions to academies. Section 482(2)(b) of the Education Act 1996 states that the school, or in this case the academy,
	"provides education for pupils of different abilities who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated".
	By inserting the words "local education authority" before "area", we seek further clarification with regard to admission to academies. Can the Government clarify—or in this case, quantify—the term "mainly"? What area will academies serve?
	I turn to Amendment No. 238, which is also a probing amendment regarding the Government's intention in relation to the establishment of additional academies. The amendment would ensure that no academy was established without prior consideration of its value in raising standards across the LEA. The establishment of city academies—or, as proposed, academies—may fragment local provision of secondary schools. Academies also involve the transfer of publicly funded assets to sponsoring bodies, which are not necessarily accountable. Sponsors provide about 20 per cent of the initial capital cost of setting up a city academy—up to £2 million of the average cost of £10 million. Public money is used to fund the remainder of the capital cost.
	In the case of the proposed city academy in Haringey, for example, there have been numerous technical difficulties in transferring land and assets to the sponsors. The relationship of sponsors to the governance of city academies has not been adequately dealt with, which is why we want to insert the new subsection.
	Amendments Nos. 242 and 243, which we have tabled at the behest of the Local Government Association, are intended to enable local leaders, in consultation with their communities, to decide on the planning of new secondary schools. That is currently the role of the schools organisation committee. The LGA is concerned that the Bill takes powers and responsibilities away from local community leaders and gives them to the Secretary of State. That undermines local democracy and provides for an unacceptable level of centralisation.
	The role of community leaders is crucial, especially given the Government's proposals to make communities more cohesive in the wake of last summer's disturbances in some English towns and cities. The proposals for community cohesion are cross-cutting and extensive and will require the full involvement of local leaders and a level of local knowledge that only they can provide. They feel—and we on these Benches agree—that the Bill runs counter to those proposals and will make it difficult for local leaders to perform their community function. The Bill fails to foster a genuine partnership between local and central government, which we want to protect.
	The Government are leading a consultation exercise on the new secondary school planned for Clapham, in a prosperous area in the borough of Lambeth. The school, a city academy, will be privately sponsored by the Church Schools Company and will take up to 180 students a year. The academy will meet the urgent need for secondary school places in Lambeth and the proposal has emerged after a long lobbying campaign by council and residents.
	Issues forming the basis of the consultation include admissions criteria, the school's ethos, how the national curriculum will be delivered and the make-up of the governing body. The borough's executive director of education, Michael Peters, has asked residents to do all in their power to ensure that the city academy delivers what is best for the community, the borough, pupils and parents. Those concerns are all relevant to the amendment.
	Amendment No. 245 originates, I think, with the NAHT. It is self-explanatory. The duties imposed on the governing bodies of maintained schools should be echoed for the academies.

Baroness Blatch: My first observation is that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, in the guise of someone trying to be helpful to local authorities is, in fact, showing her petticoat on her dislike of city academies, city technology colleges or whatever. They are, in fact, state independent schools, and the legislation setting up the city academies is based on the legislation that set up the city technology colleges in the first place.
	To be fair to the noble Baroness, she has made no secret of her views. From our earlier debates today, we know that there is an antipathy towards those colleges. I believe that they have raised educational standards in the areas in which they have been established and have been an enormously valuable educational experiment in some difficult areas, particularly urban areas.
	I shall pose a question to the noble Baroness. The city technology colleges, on which the city academies are based, have been in place for some years. What is it about those city academies that has proven to be a problem in the opinion of the noble Baroness? What has made her feel that we ought to change the basis on which the schools are set up? If we take the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness together, it would seem that she is trying to turn them all back into normal comprehensive schools within the state system and take away the independent status that they enjoy. As far as I know, the Government intend that those schools should continue to enjoy that status.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a mixed bag of amendments. It starts with Wales, so I had better deal with Wales first, had I not?
	The National Assembly for Wales has set out its strategic view of the needs for education in its document The Learning Country. The contents of that document were widely welcomed in Wales. As in England, there has been a long-standing commitment to enabling schools to build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. In Wales, that finds expression in the close partnership arrangements with local education authorities and in the Partnership Council, which consists of Assembly Members and members of local authorities and was established by the Government of Wales Act 1998.
	In those circumstances, the Government's view is that it is right to respect the decision of the Welsh Assembly that, in the light of the approach that they are taking, they do not wish to have the power proposed here. That is why we have not extended it to Wales.
	I turn to Amendment No. 234. We already require that the curriculum in each academy should be broad, and we use funding agreements to flesh that out. However, I see merit in extending the legislative requirement so that it resembles more closely the requirements placed on maintained schools in respect of the breadth and balance of the curriculum and the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and preparing them for later life. That is what the amendment does. Therefore, we accept the principle behind the amendment and its intention. We shall bring forward a government amendment at Report stage to implement it. I hope on that basis it will not be pressed.
	I am not so happy about Amendment No. 237 and I hope that it is just a misunderstanding. We agree, of course, with the intention that academies, like other schools, should serve their community and we have put in place stringent requirements to ensure that that will happen. I remind the Committee, and give a further commitment, that academies will be bound through their funding agreement to conform to the requirements of the law on admissions and the statutory codes of practice as those apply to maintained schools.
	If I sometimes say that the rules for academies are consistent with those for maintained schools, what I mean is that, in effect, they are the same. They are achieved in a different way through funding agreements rather than in other ways. However, the problem with the amendment is that communities do not always follow neat local education authority boundaries. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, knows, for maintained schools there is case law. The 1989 Greenwich judgment established that LEA maintained schools were not allowed to give priority to children simply because they lived in that LEA's administrative area. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that academies should, as far as admissions are concerned, be treated in the same way as maintained schools.
	Turning to Amendments Nos. 238, 242 and 243, the Government have consistently made clear that we expect academies to be established in partnership with local education authorities. Indeed, that has been the case. The LEA has been an active partner in all of the 17 city academy partnerships announced to date and we continue to have expressions of interest from LEAs which are keen to explore the opportunities that city academies offer for tackling under-achievement and raising standards in their area.
	Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right. There is public money involved, in particular in the provision of the sites. The key question for the Secretary of State when she considers whether or not to enter a funding agreement with an academy is the likelihood that the academy will make a significant contribution to raising standards. That is not just raising standards for pupils in the academy, but contributing to the education of pupils in other schools in the area. Academies' funding agreements will set out explicit targets for attainment at the individual school level which will feed into the host LEA's targets. They will be required, through their funding agreements, to contribute to raising standards across the board by sharing their facilities and expertise with other schools and the wider community. Therefore, the involvement with the LEA can be seen to be pretty important in the establishment of academies.
	In considering sponsors' proposals, we look for evidence that local stakeholders, including the LEA, have been involved in their development. We want to be sure that each one will complement and augment the existing provision in terms of the education it provides and the opportunities it offers to the wider community. The involvement of LEAs has contributed to the city academies programme. We expect LEAs to continue to play a positive role, for example, by being represented on the governing bodies of academies.
	Already, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult relevant LEAs before entering into a funding agreement with a city academy and that obligation, which I believe is the thrust of these amendments, is re-enacted under subsection (3) of the clause. The Secretary of State is already consulting LEAs as required. We have testimonies which I could read out, if it was not so late, from a number of local education authorities, to that point. However, we do not see any need to put in place unnecessary additional legislative hoops. The primary goal of the academies is to raise standards and it will do so most effectively when it works in partnership with the LEAs and other stakeholders.
	There may be occasions when the LEA, or an adjacent LEA, does not support the case for an academy. The Secretary of State has to consult the LEA and any other LEA from which the Secretary of State thinks pupils might attend. If the LEA or LEAs, do not support the academy, they will say so. The Secretary of State will then have to consider their views alongside the case made for the academy by sponsors and others, including local parents and other community groups.
	However, it is possible that the LEA's view may not always be the right one. There may be cases—I expect them to be rare—when the LEA sets its face against an academy and where an academy is exactly what the area needs. In such cases, the Government feel that an academy should go ahead.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 245. I am happy to say that I think it is unnecessary. Academies are independent schools funded by the Department for Education and Skills. We work hard to ensure that each one will play a full part in its local family of schools and is properly accountable. But there is no need for the blanket insistence that academies should be the same as schools maintained by the LEA. What matters—and all that matters—is that each academy has governance arrangements that meets its needs and helps it to provide the best possible education for its pupils. That does not mean that in each case the governance should be the same.
	However, it does mean—and I can give the Committee this assurance—that academies will comply in full with the requirements of special educational needs, admissions and exclusions legislation as they apply to maintained schools. We expect academies to be established as charitable companies limited by guarantee. They will have a memorandum and articles setting out their governance arrangements. We have agreed a standard memorandum and articles with the Charity Commission and we have placed a copy of this in the Library, together with a standard funding agreement.
	We intend that academies should be treated no more and no less favourably than maintained schools. They are equal but different. I hope that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wants because that is what we want.

Baroness Blatch: I think I am quoting the Minister accurately when he previously said that as far as admissions are concerned academies should be treated in the same way as maintained schools. There are two very important distinctions between academies and maintained schools. One is that they take in children from across the ability range but in about five ability bands. That is scientifically worked out, which is wholly unlike maintained schools which, if they are local comprehensive schools, simply take all-comers, whatever their abilities.
	Secondly, academies admit by interview and no other maintained school is allowed to take in children under the admissions procedure by interview. Therefore, they are different in that respect.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not quite say that the admissions procedure was the same. In order to be safe, I shall read what I said because I was reading my brief on this occasion. I said that academies will comply in full with the requirements of SEN admissions and exclusions legislation as they apply to maintained schools. As regards the issue of banding, we turn to that with the next group of amendments. I think that it would be better if we discussed the matter then.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on that. I was referring to an occasion much earlier today when the noble Lord said that as far as admissions were concerned academies were treated the same as maintained schools. It might have been in the context of another aspect, but it was not in the context of SEN.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not always read speeches and perhaps I made some such comment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is not necessarily the case—and perhaps this is relevant to the next group of amendments—that academies have banding policies. It is not necessarily the case that they interview potential pupils.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I am somewhat reassured by what he has had to say. I am delighted that he has accepted our Amendment No. 234—that is a nice little bonus for us.
	The only issue to which I want to return is that of admissions. Am I right in thinking that academies are their own admissions authorities, in the same way as the CTCs are their own admissions authorities?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are independent schools in the public sector, and they have funding agreements, memoranda, and articles. I have explained what those require them to do and the extent to which they have to obey the same law as maintained schools; but they are their own admissions authorities, subject to those very significant constraints.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I realise that those are very significant constraints and that is reassuring. What I find particularly reassuring is the degree to which the academies will be serving their own local communities. On these Benches, we feel strongly that a great deal of public money is going in and that it is important that they do not become élite academies.
	In relation to Amendment No. 237, we should be delighted to see the abolition of the Greenwich judgment, but it is there and we recognise the limitations that that imposes.
	There is a great deal in the Minister's answers, for which I thank him. We shall read them with care, and we shall possibly return to some of these issues on Report.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for explaining why Clause 62 does not apply to Wales. He referred to the document produced by the National Assembly, The Learning Country, which I have read more than once. It looks forward a decade or so, but, alas, is not very innovative in terms of practical ideas. It seems as if a straitjacket has descended on the comprehensive system in Wales. Possibly, the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been abroad in educational circles in the Principality.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord does not expect me to agree with him. In words once used by Ken Tynan, wild horses on their bended knees would not extract from me a criticism of the National Assembly for Wales.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: As regards the amendment, my personal view is that Wales is losing out and that the Bill is not as enabling as it might be, in that, if these clauses did apply to Wales, it would, of course, be up to the Assembly and others involved in education as to whether they were activated or not. Personally, I think that the idea of academies is a promising one and would be relevant in the Principality. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 235:
	Page 43, line 11, leave out "different" and insert "all"

Lord Peston: I hope that I can deal briefly with these two amendments, Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, especially as I am indebted to the good offices of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch. I tabled them partly so that we could have a good debate on comprehensives, and we managed to have such a debate earlier.
	The two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend should not be interpreted to mean that either of us supports what I regard as the most idiotic idea; namely, "academies". I have no idea what the origin of this lunacy is, but in speaking about the idea I hope that I am not interpreted as thinking for one moment that it would be other than damaging to the education system of our country.
	The Minister has spoken on more than one occasion of the Government's commitment to comprehensive education, for which I am indebted. "Comprehensive" education means admitting pupils of all abilities. One need rarely argue about the word. It does not mean "different abilities"; it means "all abilities". Therefore, given the Minister's commitment to comprehensive education—and the Minister having said how sympathetic she is to at least one Conservative amendment, how sympathetic she is to one amendment tabled by the Bishops, how sympathetic she is to one Liberal Democrat amendment—we might have an absolutely miraculous occasion and she might actually support an idea coming from her own supporters. I therefore press on the Minister the notion that we need the phrase "all abilities" and not the phrase "different abilities".
	My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey reminds me of our younger and happier days when the idea of banding was introduced in a moment of aberration on the part of the people of Haringey who voted for a very short time for a Conservative local administration. It did not last very long, but it thought that the idea of banding was a good one. Two leading figures in opposing that to the death were my noble friend and myself. We won that battle. I certainly have not changed my view and I take it that he has not. Therefore, we really must replace the word "different" with the word "all".
	Amendment No. 236 is more of a drafting amendment. In the provision, the word abilities—which I hope will be "all abilities" rather than "different abilities"—is followed by "who are wholly or mainly". That could be interpreted as meaning that the issue of abilities applies only to those who come under the "who are wholly or mainly", so that young people who do not come from the local area do not have to be of "all" or "different" abilities, but could be of one ability. That is my reading of the amendment.
	There are two possibilities here. The first is that I am right and that we need the "and" that I suggest. Alternatively, as I am not an expert in drafting, my noble friend could say, "No, we don't need the 'and' because the clause as it stands means the 'and'". Not being an expert on reading legislation I shall take his word whichever way round. However, my reading of it is that the "and" is required.
	Those are my two points. We need "all abilities" because allegedly—not allegedly; my noble friends have said how committed they are—definitely we believe in comprehensives. The "and" is to avoid any confusion as to what the clause means. I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that the importance of education is to do what is best for the child rather than to employ political prejudice.

Baroness Blatch: I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have on record now the city technology colleges, city academies and specialist schools, all of which have made a positive difference. The noble Lord cannot point to any of those establishments and say that it has failed young people in any sense whatever. In fact, they have served the more deprived communities better than any preceding schools.

Lord Peston: The noble Baroness should know that there is no research evidence supporting what she has just said, and that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence showing exactly the opposite. There is no case other than an a priori and a prejudiced case—to which I shall return in a moment—that it is the other way round. There is no case for these schools. No one has ever shown a research case for them or, in my view, a philosophical case for them. The noble Baroness really should not persist with this view that they are doing a lot of good. There is no evidence whatever that they are doing a lot of good.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I shall remain undaunted and continue to press my case. However, the noble Lord himself has not produced any evidence whatever for the case he is pressing. I shall make the following statements:
	"The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class but it has strengthened it. The revolution which afflicted state schooling from the 1960s is one of the most profound and incendiary factors influencing the state of British society. It was not merely a technical educational change, but changed the nature of the country. In 1965, the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would 'preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children'".
	Few would maintain that that has in fact been the case. Moreover,
	"The comprehensive revolution tragically destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class comprehensives whose catchment areas comprise middle class neighbourhoods while working class children are mostly left to fester in the inner city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from".
	Those are not my words but those of Andrew Adonis, a Labour Party educational adviser to the Prime Minister.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Committee concludes its debate on this amendment and issue—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we have rehearsed some of the arguments already—I should like to share an experience from my early days as a local councillor in Liverpool, 30 years ago, when I became the governor of a local comprehensive school which had been built for 2,000 children. It had been built in an area where mass demolition was taking place. The numbers in that school had fallen to about 300 or 400 pupils. Huge efforts were made, not least by the local authority which spent vast sums of money on the school. At one point it was suggested that it would have been cheaper to provide places at Eton for every child at the school than to run the school with those numbers of pupils. However, it drew from an area that was incredibly socially deprived. That council ward which I represented had some of the worst social indicators in England. Half the houses had no inside sanitation, running hot water or bathrooms. That school was more like one of the old secondary modern schools that both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I wholly oppose.
	I lived on a council estate and my father worked on the shop floor at Ford but, like others who addressed the Committee earlier this evening, I attended a grammar school. I am aware of the opportunity that that afforded me. I share that experience with the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. My support, as it were, for comprehensive schools is predicated on those experiences. However, I do not support comprehensive schools where they are simply a replica of old secondary modern schools. There is no doubt that where a school's catchment area excludes children from other social backgrounds due to its location, it is in danger of becoming that kind of school.
	To complete the story, the school I mentioned was closed down by the local education authority. That is relevant to other debates that we have had here because, ultimately, the Church of England took over the school and turned it into a non-selective girls' school. It is extraordinarily successful and, indeed, has introduced some of the most advanced technology facilities in the city. In a sense that story illustrates what the Government are trying to achieve through diversity.
	The other part of the story is that, quite close by, it is planned to situate the new academy in Liverpool which was mentioned earlier. That is to be based in an area that I represented in another place for many years. That has resulted primarily from the initiative of the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, who has been a powerhouse of energy in trying to make that happen. I can see that that will have a radically improving effect on the possibilities for children in inner-city Liverpool. We have so-called comprehensive schools in the heart of that city that have virtually never produced anyone who has gone on to higher education. We delude ourselves when we say that those schools are achieving the same objectives as comprehensive schools that are situated in suburban parts of the same city which do an incredibly good job and whose pupils are admitted to the LSE and elsewhere, as we would all wish to see.
	I believe that the Government have the matter right. The words "all" or "different" in the amendment go to the heart of the problem. Diversity is surely the issue. As my noble friend Lord Northbourne said, we must provide for the individual needs of every child. I believe that we are agreed not that every child is the same but that what is required is equality of opportunity.

Lord Lucas: Had those children been sent to Eton, they would have found familiar conditions; that is, no inside toilets and heating on just three days a week. It would have been just like home for them. I am sure that they would have done well there.
	I shall be fascinated to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has to say about banding and whether the Government are for or against it. It may interest the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to know that the place where it is becoming most popular at the moment is Camden. Clearly, being socialist is not necessarily an antidote to banding.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we opposed banding in Haringey, it was being proposed by the Labour Inner London Education Authority. So, there is no accounting for taste.
	I hope that the Committee will allow me to talk about the amendments and not about the theory of comprehensive schools. My noble friend Lady Ashton dealt with that matter this afternoon and last week. Her and my commitment to comprehensive education is not to be doubted. However, that issue is not raised by the amendments we are discussing. I want to talk about the amendments.
	I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with regard to what "different" might mean. Although he did not say so, he could be questioning whether it could allow an academy to admit only category 1—the very bright—and category 2—the bright. They would be of different abilities and would certainly not be comprehensive. I make it absolutely clear that that would not be allowed.
	The Government wish that each academy should cater for pupils with very different abilities; that is what the Bill provides. I know that Members of the Committee are keen—the Government are certainly keen—that academies should also cater for pupils from their local communities. The rules for admissions to academies—I said this in response to an earlier amendment—are consistent with those for maintained schools. I use the word "consistent" because they are based on funding agreements rather than other legislation.
	I shall now descend into semantics. Where fewer pupils apply than there are places, the academy must admit all of them. I cannot imagine a situation in which those pupils would not be representative of "different" abilities. But they may not be representative of "all" abilities nationally. In an ideal world, all abilities nationally would be represented locally. But in the real world, we know that we have geographic segregation. It may well be that pupils of all abilities do not apply to the academy, so the test set by the amendment could not and would not be met.
	Stephen Timms, the Minister for School Standards, said that he wanted academies to serve the needs of children of all abilities. That is indeed our aim and our aspiration, but it is not something that we can guarantee, as the amendment would require. Let us imagine a situation in which the academy is oversubscribed and cannot take all those who would like a place. The academy will have clear oversubscription criteria to determine who should be admitted in such cases. Those criteria will be clear, fair and transparent. They will be published locally for all to see and will be contained in the academy's funding agreement and approved by the Secretary of State.
	A common oversubscription criterion is based on distance from the school—those who live nearest have the best chance of securing a place. I believe that most people agree with that; it ensures that schools serve their local community. But let us combine that criterion with a requirement to admit pupils of all abilities. What happens if the pupils who live nearest the school do not represent all abilities? Should some of them be denied places so that the school admits pupils of all abilities?
	There is a further problem. There are many things that the Government can require of academies. We have made it clear that they must be inclusive schools and that they must follow the rules that all maintained schools must follow in terms of who is admitted. But the Government cannot require that they admit pupils of all abilities because we cannot require that pupils of all abilities apply to the academies.
	Perhaps I should apologise; it may be thought that that is a semantic argument. However, it applies not only to academies but also to all maintained schools. It is not introduced by the idea of academies. I know how my noble friend Lord Peston feels about academies; he has made his views very clear. However, what is proposed in this regard is not an admissions policy that somehow departs from the comprehensive system any more than the admission policy for maintained schools might be thought to do so.
	I turn to Amendment No. 236. We of course agree that academies should serve their community. We have put in place stringent requirements to ensure that that will happen. Academies will be bound through their funding agreements to conform to the requirements of the law on admissions and the statutory codes of practice as those apply to maintained schools.
	However, the problem with the amendment is the one that I set out when I responded to Amendment No. 237, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Local communities do not follow neat LEA boundaries. The 1989 Greenwich judgment established that LEA maintained schools were not allowed to give priority to children simply because they lived in that LEA's administrative area. The Government's policy—I believe that this view will be generally held—is that academies should, so far as admissions are concerned, be treated in the same way as maintained schools.
	I have not raised issues of profound principle about comprehensive education because I do not believe that they are raised by the amendment. However, I hope that I have answered the specific concerns that are raised by them.

Lord Peston: I suppose that when the proposed reforms are implemented and we rise at 10 p.m. the House will operate more efficiently. I must admit that I could not understand a word that the Minister just said. It may be old age or the lateness of the hour, although it is not that late.
	If I were asked to describe a comprehensive school, I would have no difficulty defining it as an all-ability school, not a different ability school. I am at a loss to understand why the department decided that "different" is right and "all" is wrong. The only explanation is that the schools are not going to be comprehensives.
	I am even more mystified by my noble friend's unwillingness to use "and". I had no idea that "and" had anything to do with the Greenwich judgment. I just thought that it would clarify the purpose of that part of the clause. My noble friend might like to reflect on the answer that the officials have written for him, which he read out admirably, and reconsider whether adding "and" would have an effect on one of the most fundamental parts of education. It beats me completely but at twenty past 10 o'clock, at my age, it is all a bit much for me. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: Before the noble Lord sits down, he might like to note that Section 101(1)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states
	"that in any year the pupils admitted to the school in any relevant age group are representative of all levels of ability among applicants for admission to the school in that age group".
	That seems a formula that we might try putting into the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 236 to 238 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 239:
	Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Secretary of State shall annually lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the admission of disabled children and children with special educational needs to schools to which an agreement under this section relates."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This probing amendment is designed to elicit a response from the Minister as to whether or not academies will be included in local education authority monitoring of admissions of children with special educational needs, with or without statements.
	Earlier, the Minister gave an assurance that academies will meet the full requirements but the amendment calls for monitoring at national level. If academies are not included in LEA monitoring, it will be important to have information on admissions of children with SENs brought together nationally, as proposed by the amendment, so that the picture is complete. If academies are to be included, will LEAs be in a position to challenge admissions if an academy were found systematically to be admitting fewer disabled and SEN children than had been expected? Current statistics show that specialist schools and CTCs do not admit the same number of children with SENs and disabilities, which gives cause for concern. I hope that the Minister agrees that as city academies are a new invention, careful monitoring is absolutely necessary. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Given that the Government will be collecting the information anyway, the assurances given earlier, which I welcome, and the increased resources that the Government have properly made available to children with special needs, which are to be commended, laying a report before Parliament would do the Government a service. The form proposed by the amendment may not be precisely the right way but no one will go to the stake over that. However, the spirit behind the amendment is good and, rather than knocking it stone dead this evening, I hope that the Government will consider the proposal between now and Report stage, if they cannot accept it tonight.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: During the passage of the Learning and Skills Act, Ministers gave unequivocal commitments that city academies, as introduced by that Act, would be inclusive schools and would treat pupils and prospective pupils with special educational needs or disabilities on an equal basis with others. I can reiterate that commitment in respect of academies. I believe that that is fundamentally what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wanted. I repeat, as I have said throughout, that they are subject to comparable requirements in all those respects to those which apply to maintained schools.
	As to the issue of reporting, each academy's funding agreement will also require the governors to publish an annual prospectus. The information to be included in the prospectus will include details of the governing body's policy for pupils with special educational needs, the details of the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils, the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils, and the facilities provided to assist access to the academy by disabled pupils. I believe that that covers the reporting point which is made in the amendment. Therefore, I hope that it will not be pressed.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he agrees with me on a point that I hoped would have been included in his answer. City technology colleges—I suspect that the academies will be no different—have been enormously innovative in providing education for children with special educational needs. Incredibly effective dyslexic and other programmes have been put in place. I have been deeply inspired by many things that I have seen in those schools. I believe that their achievements are greatly to their credit. They will have a great deal to record if they are invited to make an annual report. We all have much to learn from what they are doing in disseminating good practice around the system.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. There is no doubt whatever that the monitoring process is helpful. I should also expect to see some monitoring of outcome. As I said, the evidence to date among specialist schools is that they have not taken an equivalent number of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities as has been the case across the whole population of schools. The concept of ex post monitoring is that that target would be met.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case, I cut down my speech too much. Of course, the duties set out affecting schools in Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act apply directly to academies. They are legally bound not to discriminate against disabled pupils and prospective pupils, to make reasonable adjustments and to plan for increased access for disabled pupils. I agree that that is process and not outcome, and I believe that the noble Baroness makes a very valid point about further reporting on outcome and what actually happens. I should like to take away that point and consider how it should be done.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that it should also be placed on the record that there is no evidence for what may be anecdotal or perception in relation to our specialist schools. Those schools are as bound by the law as are city academies and maintained schools. They cannot refuse young people with special educational needs; indeed, they have an obligation under the law to provide for them. I believe that they do so.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I believe that there is a distinction between CTCs and city academies and some of the specialist schools that have been developed. However, I shall withdraw the amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister may bring forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 240:
	Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) Any agreement proposed should be published at least six months ahead of being formally entered into."

Lord Peston: When these amendments were put down in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, our intention was to have a full debate on the academies. So far as I know, there has never been a full debate in your Lordships' House on the nature of these institutions and what they are all about. However, I must take account of the lateness of the hour. A few moments ago, my thought was to wait until Report stage to raise the matter. But my luck has been so bad that, if I leave the amendments until Report stage, they will probably be dealt with at one o'clock in the morning rather than at half-past ten. Therefore, I shall soldier on, but briefly.
	I also apologise to the Committee because, although the three amendments were grouped together in order to have a large debate, they are something of a ragbag. Therefore, I must treat each of them separately.
	Amendment No. 240 concerns the fact that in order to go ahead with these matters—earlier the Minister made this clear—there has to be proper consultation. The amendment says that the agreement should be published early enough and with a sufficient time lag so that the consultation shall be more than a formality. There should be an opportunity for everyone who believes that he or she is interested—I do not regard the LEA as the only interested body—to intervene.
	The second point relates to the peculiar phenomenon of the academy. I emphasise the word "peculiar" because my understanding is that it will be an independent school and yet a state school. It appears that we are giving a large amount of publicly owned assets to the private sector. On other occasions one may consider that a misuse of public funds. Again, subject to the Minister telling me that I am wrong, we shall be financing them more generously than other local schools.
	Some people who are involved with the academies do not appear to have any connection with education, let alone education within the maintained sector. To say that one is suspicious of that is to put it mildly. If public assets are to be given to private individuals, the very least we should demand is the highest standards of financial planning, transparency and all the related matters. There will be a need to draw up proper accounts and to publish them such that they can be subject to proper scrutiny so that we know what is happening.
	Where the Government have brought in the private sector and given it public sector assets I have been troubled by a question to which I received a glimmer of an answer earlier when we discussed Church schools. If anything goes wrong, to whom will the assets revert? That is an extremely important question. Many of these schools are on sites that would be worth millions of pounds if they were converted into supermarkets. If something went wrong, the owners, who would not be the Government, could sell the site and build a supermarket.
	Apologising for jumping all over the place, which as my noble friend is aware is not my wont, alarm bells sound in relation to what is said on page 43, lines 25 and 26. It starts by saying that these schools cannot charge fees and then says that they can, but it does not tell us in what circumstances. I can imagine no worse event than such schools having a power to charge any pupil for education. On the whole I am not a conspiracy theorist as I assume that everything in the world in which we live is open and honest, but why does it say,
	"subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement"?
	In my judgment there should be no exceptions whatever. It should be absolutely out of the question that any school should be able to charge its pupils. I am sure that my noble friend is about to tell me that I am right, although I need to ask him so that it is put on the record. It also gives him an opportunity to say that the words that I want to take out are a nullity. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am a conspiracy theorist. I assume the worst in all circumstances. I can assure my noble friend that I questioned officials deeply when I saw these amendments. The idea of inadequate consultation or additional charging or a lack of financial planning would have turned me utterly against the idea of academies in the first place. I shall not comment on his fundamental distrust of academies. If he had wanted to express that, I have no doubt that he would have tabled an amendment to that effect. However, he has tabled amendments about the detail of academies. I believe that I can reassure him on each of his points.
	I believe that Amendment No. 240, which proposes that a funding agreement be published six months ahead of being formally entered into, is unnecessary. Where it is proposed that an academy be established in response to an LEA invitation to interested parties to bring forward proposals to provide an entirely new school, the provisions of Clause 66 of the Bill would apply. Where an academy replaces one or more existing schools, the system is again clear and transparent—the LEA, or the governing body as the case may be, will consult locally and publish notices in accordance with the relevant sections of the School Standards and Framework Act to close the existing school. Those notices will set out the arrangements to be made for the pupils who attended those schools and the provision to replace that which is currently made in those schools.
	My noble friend Lord Peston will remember that when we went comprehensive in Haringey in 1967, we closed all the schools. He will also remember how long it took us to close them. It took a great deal longer than six months—the period provided for by this amendment.
	Under the provisions of Clause 62, before signing a funding agreement, the Secretary of State already must consult the LEA in which the academy is to be located, and any other academy from which significant numbers of pupils are likely to attend.
	In practice, the funding agreement will be signed many months—not six—in advance of the opening of the academy. In the case of the Walsall academy, which was undertaken with the enthusiastic support of the local education authority, the agreement was signed in December 2001 and the academy will open in September 2003. There are no circumstances in which a school could open within less than six months of the signing and publication of the funding agreement.
	With regard to Amendment No. 241, I can assure the Committee that the financial controls must and will conform with the requirements of both propriety and good financial management. Through their funding agreements, academies are required to ensure that appropriate financial planning and management controls are in place to safeguard public funds.
	Incidentally, I can again reassure my noble friend Lord Peston that there is no more generous public funding for academies than for maintained schools. There may be more funding from sponsors, but there is no more funding from the public purse than for maintained schools. With regard to the issue of public assets going into the academies, I can also assure my noble friend that if for any reason the academy comes to an end—a point that may be dealt with in later amendments—there is no question but that those public assets will return to the public sector.
	Academies are expected to be companies and charities. They are required to prepare and file with the Companies Registry such annual accounts as are required by the Companies Act 1985, and to prepare and file with the Charity Commission annual accounts prepared in accordance with the statement of recommended practice. They must also comply with their obligation under the Charities Act 1993 to prepare an annual report and to transmit it to the Charity Commissioners. Through their funding agreements, they are required to secure annual auditing of their accounts by independent auditors appointed under arrangements approved by the Secretary of State. That is the formal position. Will that meet the requirements of good financial practice, which is what the amendment seeks?
	Unfortunately, the amendment would undermine an academy's ability to manage its affairs and carry out its core function of raising standards in some of our most disadvantaged areas. It would seek to include in an academy's funding agreement, which is a legally binding document, a detailed financial plan for the first five years of the academy's existence. It would bind an academy to a rigid, long-term spending regime from which it would not have any flexibility to deviate. That kind of requirement is not placed on maintained schools. If we are seeking equality with maintained schools, the amendment would depart from that. We want to give—and the whole thrust of government policy has been to give—the maximum amount of flexibility to schools to manage their own affairs.
	Amendment No. 244 relates to charging. Again, I can give the Committee assurances on this point. Clause 62 provides that no charge may be made for admission to, or attendance at, an academy. The standard funding agreement provides that academies should act in accordance with certain sections of the 1996 Act, as those provisions apply to maintained schools; in other words, Clause 62, taken with the provisions of the standard funding agreement—which, as I said, is available in the Library of the House—means that academies are treated in exactly the same way as maintained schools.
	I know that my noble friend is not satisfied with the position of maintained schools. I realise that he does not like the provision that, for example, musical tuition for groups of fewer than four can be charged for. I also know that my noble friend does not like the fact that charges for travel and accommodation on school trips can be made. However, that is the wider law as it applies to maintained schools. It has been thrashed out over a very considerable period of time. Therefore, to require academies to depart from the conditions for maintained schools, will, as I said earlier when we discussed the issue of school companies, mean that adult education centres, for example, could not charge for classes held on school premises outside of school hours.
	In common with maintained schools, academies can levy charges for board and lodging for residential trips, and for what are called "optional extras"; but they can do no more. We would never agree that they should do any more. My fundamental point for all these amendments is that there are no privileges here in any of these respects for academies. The standards required of maintained schools apply equally to them.

Baroness Blatch: I agree with the noble Lord about the degree of accountability of these schools: they are very accountable in a most public way. However, it is my understanding that they do in fact receive greater revenue funding from the Government. I also understand that the children who attend them receive more hours of education than those in maintained schools.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know the position regarding school hours. They have greater flexibility as to what hours they offer, but they certainly do not receive more funding.

Lord Peston: I must begin by apologising to my noble friend. I, too, was under the impression that academies were more generously financed. However, my noble friend is advised, and I have to work these things out for myself. Given what I was pretty sure was the case, I certainly hope that he will ask his officials to check the position. I was very much under the impression that such schools were more generously financed for current expenditure, but, because I am a perpetual student, I am always delighted to be corrected on such matters.
	I am very much reassured by what my noble friend said on the charging point. I should add that my objection to charging is not quite as strong as he maintained. If what is charged for is defined as part of the curriculum, which it often is, it just should not be charged for. The fight for free education in our country simply should not be ended because of new doctrines that emerge. However, if such activities are nothing to do with the curriculum and are extraneous, I can live with the situation. What is troubling me is that sometimes they form part of the curriculum and great pressures are put on very poor parents to find money that they should not be asked to find. None the less, although I suspected that there was something special about these schools, as opposed to others, I take my noble friend's assurance that that is not the case.
	I shall read my noble friend's response with care. I am a little mystified here. I do not see that the criteria set out in my amendment for proper financial behaviour and probity would in any way restrict schools. After all, every organisation must have the sort of financial arrangement that I have outlined. I have not noticed that business enterprise complains because it has to have proper financial arrangements in terms of flexibility, and so on. Having a full financial plan covering five years is absolutely standard in business. Therefore, why it should in any way limit these schools is quite beyond me.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a legally binding document, and that is not the case for the financial plans of businesses. It would not be capable of amendment in the way that a business plan would be.

Lord Peston: That mystifies me even more. A well-run operation sets out what money it proposes to spend and where it will get it from. The fact that it is a legally binding document does not excuse bodies from doing exactly that. It would be foolhardy not to do so. To use a word that has been bandied about, it is all semantics and we really agree.
	We have covered some of the ground, but it is not the end of the matter, although my noble friend the Minister has been very reassuring. I need to put on record more strongly my antipathy to these bodies. That can wait in the hope that the subject of academies will come up in daylight hours in a couple of weeks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before that happens, I want to add a question and hope that the Minister will write to me between now and the next stage of the Bill.
	The academies are funded directly by Government and not by an LEA. Every LEA holds back different sums of money for different functions, so the amount of money that goes to schools is consequent upon the amount of money held back by the LEA. The Government treat the academies rather differently; they are directly funded. How do the Government calculate the sum of money that would normally be fed through an LEA to a school per pupil and the way in which academies are funded? We would find the answer illuminating.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will remember that the Bellman in the The Hunting of the Snark said:
	"What I tell you three times is true".
	I have told her twice and she now wants me to write to her in more detail. I shall gladly do so—that will be the third time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 245A:
	Page 43, leave out lines 35 to 37.

Baroness Blatch: I shall be brief as I simply want to question why there has been a change. The city technology colleges have been in place for some time and Section 483 of the 1996 Act has worked well. Subsection (2) in lines 35-37 on page 43 will effect a change from "shall" to "may". In a slightly cynical way, I must ask whether an amendment was won to change "may" to "shall" against the then Conservative Government. Does the change represent the department's revenge?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.
	It might be helpful if I explain the intention behind Clause 62(2), which the amendment would delete. It should be considered alongside the proposed repeal of Section 483(3A) of the 1996 Act contained in Schedule 22 of the Bill, as it effectively replaces the provisions of that section.
	The purpose of subsection 62(2) is to allow for, rather than require, academies to repay capital grant to the Secretary of State in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. I referred to that in passing when my noble friend Lord Peston was here. This provision is necessary because academies, unlike CTCs, will not retain the land and buildings that they occupy in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. That is fundamental and my noble friend Lord Peston is strongly recommended to read this part of Hansard when it appears tomorrow. Because of this difference it would be perverse for the Secretary of State to require them to repay capital grant paid in respect of the land and buildings. They would have no assets or income from which to fund the repayment.
	Academies will be established as replacements for existing maintained schools, or to provide new school places in areas where there is a need. In all circumstances, we expect the LEA in which the academy is to be situated to transfer a suitable site to the academy at no cost, as it will be providing places for children who would otherwise be the responsibility of the LEA. The LEA may lease the site to the academy, or transfer the freehold.
	If the funding agreement is terminated, for whatever reason, it would be inappropriate for the academy to retain ownership of land and buildings transferred to it at no cost. Where a local education authority transfers land to an academy, either leasehold or freehold, there will normally be provision in the contract for the land to revert to the authority if it is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
	The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it, where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
	I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances, and that the provisions of subsection 62(2) are an improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.
	The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
	I hope the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances. The provisions of Clause 62(2) are an improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: If the local authority transfers the freehold over to the new academy, which is an independent company limited by guarantee, then surely the company owns the land. How is it proposed to impose on that company an obligation to return the land to the local authority if it did not fulfil its functions?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is proposed to do that by imposing a condition to the freehold transfer, which can also be done to a lease. Schedule 7 to the Bill disapplies the rule against perpetuities, so removing restrictions on the grant of an option to a local education authority to re-acquire the interest in a site transferred to an academy.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that it is not a pun, but I want to talk about a level playing field. We talked earlier about a change to a diocesan measure where the Church enters into a contract to establish an academy and the land is subsequently sold. It is the same basis here with the academies, only the third party is not a Church venture. If the land is subsequently sold, my understanding is that—and I have left a question with the noble Baroness to attend to later—the land and its value actually goes to the Church and the Church is obliged to use any proceeds from the sale for educational purposes. There is not a level playing field here in that the land reverts back to the LEA. There is no ongoing obligation on the part of the third party. So it would seem that the Churches are being treated extremely favourably. I should like to leave that question on the record so that it can be scooped up with my previous one.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me respond immediately to that because my understanding, and the answer I gave, was based on the assumption that the land had come from the local education authority and had been transferred at no cost. My advice was that that would be the normal situation. Under those circumstances land has to return to the local authority. I see the point of the question of the land going back—to use Ray Gunter's words—"from whence it came". I would like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about that matter.

Baroness Blatch: That would add another dimension to the question. My understanding is that some of the schools set up with Church collaboration are not necessarily always preceded by ownership by the Church. Therefore, there will be a transfer of land and assets. It would be useful to have that question answered. I am still puzzled as to why this has worked so far and why there is this change. I shall read what the noble Lord has had to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 62 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Academies: supplementary]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 246:
	Page 151, line 20, at end insert—

"Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (1991 No. 2)

1A (1) Section 10 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of "church school", at the end there is inserted "or an Academy falling within subsection (1A)".
	(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
	"(1A) An Academy falls within this subsection if—
	(a) at least one member of its governing body is appointed to that body to represent the interests of the Church of England;
	(b) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust that, in the event of the discontinuance of the Academy, the property concerned was to be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of the Church of England; or
	(c) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust in connection with the provision of education, or the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 247:
	After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
	"MEANING OF SPECIALIST SCHOOL
	The Secretary of State may by order designate any community, foundation or voluntary secondary school as a specialist school if it has one or more of the following specialisms—
	(a) technology;
	(b) arts;
	(c) sports;
	(d) languages;
	(e) engineering;
	(f) business and enterprise;
	(g) community;
	(h) international;
	(i) any other specialism introduced by order of the Secretary of State; or
	(j) any other specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Amendment No. 247 seeks to tease out the concept of the specialist school more than we have to date. There is no secret that we, on these Benches, have reservations about the whole concept of the specialist school. At present, this applies to a limited number of schools. While the Government are extending that number, it is proposed that only 50 per cent of our secondary schools should become specialist schools. The arrival of specialist schools brings a considerable financial benefit.
	The categories suggested here extend the list of specialist schools to international schools and to any specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school. In other words, the amendment develops the concept of innovation that the Minister intends the Bill to encourage. There may be areas of specialisation for which schools would like to apply that are not currently listed. It also introduces the concept of a specialist community school. The concept of a community school, which brings such facilities as, say, a public library, childcare and nursery facilities, information services, youth and leisure facilities and adult education alongside a school, has been around for a long time. Indeed, it has been practised with a great deal of success in several areas—perhaps the most renowned being the Cambridge community colleges.
	The Local Government Association, in its response to last year's White Paper, Schools—achieving success, proposed the extension of specialist schools, arguing that there was a need for the community category of specialist schools because in many areas where specialist schools may be proposed, parents and the local community need to be engaged. Community schools have a good record of engaging children's families in learning activities.
	In advocating those developments, the LGA wants to look beyond the normal cluster of activities associated with community schools to such areas as banking, post office or health facilities, housing advice and tourism. Whether schools as the centre of a community should extend as far as the LGA envisages is a moot point, but the central argument remains: involving the community in its schools raises aspirational achievement. That would be a novel way to extend the concept of the community school. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will know from our earlier deliberations, the specialist schools programme is well established. The current network of 685 specialist schools includes all types of secondary school across every part of England and encompassing 90 per cent of local education authorities. The schools currently in the programme were designated through an administrative process. That mechanism has worked well for a long time—since 1994, in fact—and continues to work effectively. Making the designation process statutory would of course make it more cumbersome and would have no benefit for applicant schools. I can see no point in making regulations where there is no good reason for doing so and therefore the new clause should be rejected.
	The process of designating a school to a specialist status is not about making a change in the legal status of a school or affecting its admissions policy. It remains a community, foundation, voluntary or special school. I want to be clear on that. Seeking designation in one of the eight specialisms now offered is about the focus on a specific curriculum area to develop a school's distinctive ethos and character in order, as I said earlier, to play to the school's strengths. The extent to which a school is committed to and capable of embedding a specialist school identity is shown by the quality of the application that it submits and during a visit to the school by an assessor.
	It is on the basis of that application, which is judged against others and against the published criteria, that the Secretary of State awards specialist designation. By seeking to enshrine in legislation the categories of specialism, the new clause puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of the programme's development. Such an amendment would add to bureaucracy at a time when we are considering how to reduce the burden of regulation.
	Let me comment briefly on the inclusion of "international" schools. We have, as I said, retained a curriculum focus at the heart of the programme. Of course, some schools will develop international links—one thinks of modern foreign languages as an obvious example. But we should focus on curriculum areas.
	The question of community schools is a different debate. We can debate extending what schools do, but that is inappropriate to the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. The concept of a specialist community school is rather a good one. I am sorry that she has dismissed it out of hand.
	I recognise what the Minister says about the focus on the curriculum. Nevertheless, as she knows, it carries a considerable money tag. The schools that need the extra resources are the schools that, arguably, find it most difficult to meet the requirement to raise the extra £50,000 for the curriculum tag. The definition of a specialist school is too narrow, and we should widen it.
	Given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 248:
	Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
	"PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH ETC.
	( ) A proposal to establish, alter or discontinue a school can be made by an admission authority or potential admission authority, the Secretary of State in the case of a City Academy, or the Local Education Authority where the authority is not the admission authority.
	( ) All proposals shall be considered and determined by the School Organisation Committee which covers the area in which the proposed school is to be situated."

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 248, I shall speak to Amendment No. 253 and oppose the Question that Clauses 66 and 67 stand part of the Bill. It may sound as though it will be a long speech, but it will not, as the Committee will be relieved to hear. I shall be concise.
	Clauses 66 and 67 enshrine in the Bill further ways in which powers and responsibilities are to be taken away from local authorities and given to the Secretary of State. That undermines local democracy and is part of the centralising agenda behind the Bill. Under those clauses, the LEA would have to invite bids to establish new secondary schools, and the resultant competition would determine who established the school. By removing the clauses, inserting the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 248 and removing paragraph (b) of Clause 67(2), we would ensure that local leaders would decide on the planning of new secondary schools in consultation with the LEA. They would be able to take into consideration the needs of other schools in the area, as well the type of demand for a new school.
	Such consultation can work well, as has already been proved in Clapham. There, a new school—a city academy—will be privately sponsored by the Church Schools Company and will have an intake of up to 180 students per year. It will meet an urgent need for places in the borough. The school was established after long consultation with the council and residents on its ethos, admissions criteria, curriculum, the make-up of the governing body and many other matters. Such consultation could be bypassed by Clauses 66 and 67. That is why I am concerned about them.
	The school organisation committees were established to oversee school planning in an area and to consult all stakeholders. It is important that those bodies are always involved in such planning and that that function is not centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The new clause would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, reverse the provisions that we are introducing in Clauses 66 and 67 of the Bill.
	Clause 66 provides that, if a local education authority thinks that an additional school—I choose my words carefully—is necessary, it must publish a notice inviting proposals from interested parties. At the end of the period given for proposals to be made, it may also make proposals of its own. All the proposals will be considered together and decided on by the Secretary of State. Between 1998 and 2001, there were 17 additional schools. Last year, there were six.
	The new clause provides for proposals to establish, alter or discontinue a school to be made by an admissions authority or by the local education authority if it is not the admissions authority. The proposal would then be decided on by the school organisation committee. That goes beyond reversing the provisions of Clause 66 and would greatly extend the powers of local education authorities over schools for which they are not the admissions authority. Most proposals relating to alterations to voluntary and foundation schools are the sole responsibility of their governing body. The new clause would allow an LEA, for example, to propose the closure of a voluntary-aided school.
	The suggestion that the Secretary of State should be able to publish proposals to establish or alter an academy is both at odds, and odd, in terms of local decision-making. Plans for academies are developed by local partnerships, including the local education authority and the sponsor, which provides the substantial contribution, as Members of the Committee know, to capital costs. The Secretary of State already has powers to terminate agreements with academies.
	However, not only are its ramifications very wide, we cannot accept the replacement of the provisions of Clause 66. We believe that our proposals will encourage a greater range of providers to think seriously about establishing new secondary schools, and help to encourage greater innovation across the state sector.
	I should like to say more about the way in which this proposal would work. The basis of this clause is that when a local education authority believes that a new secondary school is necessary, the way in which it will put this forward is that the local education authority will publish a notice, identify a site, invite any interested parties to come forward and publish a notice setting out information. All the proposals go to the local organisation committee for comment before being passed on to the Secretary of State, and will be considered on their individual merits.
	We want to rectify the position that at present those who have an interest in providing a new secondary school may simply not be aware that there is any need for additional places. Even if they are, they may not be able to find a suitable site. We want to rectify that and to create a level playing field for new promoters. The notice will specify a site.
	The noble Baroness has argued that this clause takes power from local education authorities. I do not believe that, for the reasons that I have already explained. I can say one thing that I hope will be helpful without damaging the principles of the clause. If it would help Members of the Committee, I am prepared to bring forward an amendment at the next stage to remove the requirement in Clause 66(1) for local education authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent before presenting a notice under this clause. That confirms the local education authority as being firmly in the driving seat in this process. I hope that that might help the noble Baroness.
	Clause 67 simply updates existing provisions to allow LEAs greater flexibility in responding to directions. The Secretary of State already has powers in Schedule 7 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to direct local education authorities and governing bodies to bring forward proposals to rectify any shortfall or surplus of school places, and to bring forward her own proposals if she is not satisfied with those published in response to the direction. This clause simply widens a local education authority's possible range of response to a direction by adding the new powers of Clause 66 to the existing arrangements. I should stress that the powers in this clause are very much powers of last resort that would be used only in very exceptional circumstances.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 253. I should stress that it would not reinstate the local education authority's ability to respond to a direction from the Secretary of State by publishing proposals for additional schools without inviting other interested parties to make bids. That would require that paragraph 97(2) of Schedule 21 should cease to have effect in those circumstances. The actual effect of the amendment would be to limit a local education authority's ability to respond to a direction because it would not be able to create an additional school. The fact that these proposals are being made in response to a direction does not change our view that all interested parties in an area should be properly informed of the need for a new school so that they can consider the contribution they can make.
	As I said, our provisions do not prevent local education authorities making their own proposals; they merely ensure that others do so as well. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply and eagerly look forward to her amendment at the next stage of the Bill. We may then return to the issue of the removal of power from local authorities and instating it in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has in mind to put the LEA in "the driving seat". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 249:
	Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
	"GRAMMAR SCHOOLS: RETENTION OF EXISTING ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
	In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31)—
	(a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4),
	(b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements),
	(c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to end selective admission arrangements), omit subsections (3)(b) and (4)."

Baroness Blatch: I return to the Prime Minister's personal adviser on education who wrote a book, A CLASS ACT: The Myth of Britain's Classless Society, in conjunction with Stephen Pollard. On pages 39 to 40, he wrote:
	"In the post-war decades direct-grant schools such as Dulwich College provided a far more effective bridge between the state and private sectors than the more recent assisted places scheme. The direct-grant scheme succeeded, without any fanfare, in opening up many of the best independent schools to ability rather than wealth. It is a sad irony that in destroying the direct-grant schools on the alter of equal opportunity, the 1974-9 Labour government succeeded only in denying opportunity to many poor children and increasing the number of fee-paying parents. From then on, for any parent concerned to secure a rigorously academic education for his child, there was generally little choice but to go private".
	One could say the same about the demise of grammar schools.
	It bears repeating that on page 51, Andrew Adonis goes on to say:
	"The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class but strengthened it. The revolution which afflicted state schooling from the 1960s is one of the most profound and incendiary factors influencing the state of British society. It was not merely a technical educational age, but changed the nature of the country".
	On page 52 he said:
	"In 1965 the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would 'preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children'. Few would maintain that this has in fact been the case".
	On pages 54 to 55 he went on to say:
	"The comprehensive revolution, tragically, destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle-class children now go to middle-class comprehensives, whose catchment areas comprise middle-class neighbourhoods, while working-class children are mostly left to fester in the inner-city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from".
	Those passages bore repeating because this is the Government's own education adviser recanting on much that had gone before.
	At least the city academies, the city technology colleges and the specialist schools are doing something about tackling that problem in the inner city areas. However, I have to say that the Government have been wringing their hands for a long time about young people from poorer homes entering higher education. It is interesting to note that a greater proportion of young people from poorer homes entered higher education at the beginning of direct-grant schools, then from assisted places schools and certainly from grammar schools.
	Therefore, one of the questions one must ask the Government is: if the reason that the panoply of petitions, ballots and so forth to determine the future of schools is because they are selective, why grammar schools? There are selective special schools and bilateral schools. Why does the community not have a say in respect of bilateral schools? There are selective faith schools, so why does the community not have a say about them?
	I am not advocating that, because I believe in freedom, choice and diversity, in which the Government say they believe. That is right, but why are grammar schools singled out for this particular treatment? I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: It is no secret that on these Benches I in particular dissent from the views about grammar schools expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Government's adviser, Andrew Adonis. Perhaps one of the reasons I feel that so much of the Bill is bad is because much of it has derived from Andrew Adonis in Number 10.
	My amendment also relates to grammar school ballots but my concern is to simplify the whole process of the ballot and make it somewhat fairer. I have been provided with a long brief which goes into the details of grammar school ballots, but I do not propose to read the whole of it at this hour of night. It is much too late.
	Perhaps I may make only three comments. The amendment we have tabled makes three changes. First, it concerns the question of who is eligible to vote and it extends the right to allow an area ballot for all parents by removing the legislation relating to feeder-school ballots. Therefore all local parents of primary-age children and younger would be eligible to sign petitions and vote on whether their local secondary schools should cease to select.
	Secondly, it would reduce the percentage of the electorate required to sign a petition in order to trigger a ballot, which is currently at 20 per cent, to 5 per cent. That is the proportion required, for example, to trigger a local referendum in a big issue at a local level.
	Thirdly, it would allow the LEA to give more indication about what a comprehensive system would look like in the event of a successful vote.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these new clauses would either repeal the provisions for petitions and ballots of parents to decide on proposed changes to the selective admission arrangements of grammar schools, or fundamentally change the way in which they are conducted. We believe that in both cases the effects would be unfortunate, and that the amendments are unnecessary.
	The details of the petition and ballot process were debated vigorously and at length during the passage of the 1998 Act, both in this House and in another place. The issue was debated again during the passage of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Indeed, Amendment No. 249 is itself largely a repeat of amendments which have already been tabled against this Bill and debated in another place.
	Amendment No. 249, by removing the arrangements for ballots completely, would seek to take power away from parents—the people most concerned in the outcome—and place it back in the hands of local authorities.
	We have made our position on selection clear. We do not support selection by ability at 11 and do not wish to see it extended. We remain convinced that local parents—rather than Ministers or local government—are best placed to decide whether the 164 existing grammar schools should continue to select their pupils by ability.
	I am well aware that it was a Conservative government who first gave parents the right to a ballot on whether schools should opt out of their local education authority and become grant-maintained. We believe that the system of balloting can be appropriate, and that is why we believe that in this case it should stay.
	The ballot legislation does not threaten grammar schools. It ensures that local school provision reflects the needs and wishes of local people. If local people declare that they wish their grammar school to retain its selective admission arrangement, as was the case in Ripon, in North Yorkshire, then so be it; that is local democracy.
	It is parents who should be making these decisions. They are best placed to make the right decision on the future of their local school. It is right that they should continue to be given the opportunity to participate in such decisions.
	Whereas Amendment No. 249 would remove the ballot legislation altogether, Amendment No. 249A seeks to make changes which could be just as damaging. The changes it proposes would disenfranchise the parents of several groups of children who might wish to express an opinion. Such changes would add a great deal of unnecessary complication to the process.
	Subsection (2) would remove the current sub-LEA groupings of grammar schools, which are designed to take account of local circumstances, including the pattern of intake and the provision of single-sex education.
	If the intention is that all ballots must involve all parents throughout the LEA even if there is only one grammar school in one corner of the area, the actual number of petitioners required to trigger a ballot could be higher than it is now, even if the threshold is reduced from 20 per cent to 5 per cent—and many of the parents whose support would be needed would have no direct interest in the outcome, so would be less likely to be interested in petitioning for a ballot.
	If the intention is that specific sub-LEA areas should be defined for each grammar school or group of schools not in a selective area, this would be an extremely complicated, and in some cases arbitrary, process. It could also disenfranchise many parents with a reasonable expectation that their child would attend the relevant grammar school.
	Subsection (3) would remove the right of parents of secondary school aged children to vote in ballots concerning selective areas, even though any change to the grammar schools would have a knock-on effect for secondary provision throughout the area. Parents of secondary age pupils have a real interest in the outcome of such ballots, and should not have the opportunity to vote taken away from them.
	Subsections (4) and (6) would remove the right of feeder school parents—those parents with the most direct interest in the future admission arrangements of the grammar schools—to vote, and would mean that all ballots would be based on a defined area. We believe that removing provision for feeder school ballots would be unhelpful.
	I understand that subsection (5) is intended to lower the petition threshold—although I must say that it is not drafted in that way. We have made clear that we feel that 20 per cent is the right figure to demonstrate clear local support for a ballot before one is actually held. Setting the threshold as low as 5 per cent would mean that the expense and uncertainty of holding a ballot could be incurred when there is really very little local demand to change the existing arrangements.
	Finally, subsection (7) is more prescriptive than the current provision in the School Standards and Framework Act. There is nothing currently to stop an authority from producing proposals on the system it would introduce should selection be removed. On the other hand, the narrower wording adopted in the amendment may prevent some proposals from being published because they do not fall within the precise wording of the provision.
	These new clauses are unnecessary. As I said, the grammar school ballot arrangements have been debated in great detail and the arguments are well rehearsed. We remain convinced that the arrangements currently in place represent the best way forward and that parents must continue to be given the opportunity to express their opinions. These new clauses offer nothing new to that debate and, as explained, could have unfortunate results. I therefore very much hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, will not press their amendments.

Baroness Blatch: I should have said at the outset that my argument, like that of Andrew Adonis, is not against comprehensives per se. It is on the record—I shall say it again—that my own children went to a comprehensive school in Cambridgeshire. They did very well and I have no complaints about the school at all. I am talking about "one size fits all". I have heard the Minister herself say that they do not believe that one size fits all and that there is room for diversity. Of the 24,000 or so schools, we are talking about 166 grammar schools. I simply do not understand how a group of schools can be so offensive to the Minister and her colleagues.
	The Minister criticises my amendment on the basis that the proposals have been discussed on a number of previous occasions. There is no law against returning to a subject. In fact, during our debates, the Government have returned to a number of previous statutes and proposed changes to them. I have not used the argument that we have been here before, that the proposals have been discussed endlessly and that we should therefore not accept them. Legislation is a dynamic process. Times change and the world changes and legislatures go back to previous statutes and discuss them again. I make no apology for returning to previous debates.
	The Minister also said that there should be no extension because the Government fundamentally do not believe in this form of selection. My amendment has nothing to do with extension. Although, as she knows, I would not object to any extension for these schools, my amendment is not suggesting extension. It is merely suggesting that there should not be this continual war of attrition on these schools.
	Another argument used by the Minister is that the Conservatives introduced balloting for grant-maintained schools. That is absolutely true. However, the very important distinction is that that balloting did not change the nature of the school. Schools that became grant-maintained schools retained their nature. If they were selective before, they were selective after; if non-selective before, they remained non-selective; if comprehensive, they remained so; if specialist, they maintained that status. There was absolutely no change in the nature of the school.
	These ballots would result not only in the school's nature being changed but in the school's abolition. It would no longer be a grammar school, and there is no guarantee that it would remain a school at all. As was confirmed in previous debates, in some cases, post-ballot, the school would disappear entirely. In other cases, it would be converted to a non-selective school. In fact, we tried to introduce an amendment providing that the local authority should say in its business plan what would happen if a ballot were successful. The Government insisted that that should not happen and that the business plan should follow and not precede the grammar school's demise.
	I do not think that the arguments are very strong, but I shall not press my amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 249A.
	Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
	"GRAMMAR SCHOOL BALLOTS: EXTENDING ELIGIBILITY TO LOCAL PARENTS
	(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 105(2) (procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements), paragraphs (b) and (c) are omitted.
	(3) In section 106(1) (eligibility of parents to request or vote in a ballot) there is inserted "primary" before "schools".
	(4) In section 106 subsection (2) is omitted.
	(5) In section 106(3)(a) (proportion of parents required to request a ballot) for "20" there is substituted "5".
	(6) In section 106(3) paragraph (b) is omitted.
	(7) In section 107(3) (information provision by the authority or body on intentions or proposals following a successful petition) for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
	"(c) a statement by the authority or body on intention or proposals for a non-selective education system which may include information on options, costs and planning assumptions in the event of such a result."."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am disappointed with the answer from the Minister as the amendment was intended to simplify the incredibly Byzantine rules currently surrounding grammar school ballots. There is a great deal to be said for trying to simplify the rules and make them fairer and easier for parents. However, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 249A not moved.]
	Clause 66 [Proposals for additional secondary schools]:

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 250:
	Page 44, line 22, leave out "local education authority in England" and insert "permitted body"

Lord Lucas: In moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 252. I do not pretend that this is anything like complete drafting. It is merely intended to introduce the general proposition that we should seek to move towards the Dutch and Danish method of organising school systems; that is, to allow not any party but any sensible party the right to establish a school if they can establish that there is a demand for that school. That school would then become part of the state system subject to the usual terms and conditions of that system.
	For a long time, certainly when my party was in government and all the way through this Government's term of office, there has been a long debate about surplus places as if that was something which could be cured only by planning, by placing bureaucratic restrictions on the ability to create new schools and by bearing down ever more on the availability of surplus places—surplus places, of course, being the only mechanism that was available to enable school choice on the part of parents to take place. So, we have the uncomfortable position whereby a lot of parents are not getting the schools that they want for their children, but there is an inability to create the schools that parents would want.
	If one looks at the Dutch and Danish systems—as was done a few months ago with great care and insight by the Robert Adam Institute—one sees that allowing freedom for schools to be created within the state system does not result in a widespread waste of money or surplus places but in an efficient system where schools in an area tend to be the sort of schools that parents want in that area. If there is a demand for, say, a new Roman Catholic school, the Church will propose it, recruit the parents that it needs to reach the minimum level, provide it and it will just happen. If there is a shrinkage of demand, as happens in the private sector, a school will reduce in size or go out of existence if that is what parents want. A system is produced which is much more responsive to parents' wishes than anything that relies on our Stalinist style of planning, however burdened it may be with wondrous committees of people who are appointed rather than elected to decide how we should establish our school system, how it should be regulated and how admission should be organised.
	This measure is just a first step in the right direction. It suggests that the Secretary of State should designate a number of bodies. She could start with the Churches. The principal Churches would be obvious people to be allowed to propose the establishment of a new school. One might name a number of other bodies which have successfully established, say, city technology colleges or other state educational institutions and allow them to propose a school if there is a local demand for it. If there is a local demand, they should be allowed to go ahead and create a school.
	If someone is doing that with their own money and providing the capital cost of a school, I cannot see that that would result in any disadvantage to the state system. It would provide a great influx of new ideas and new blood and it would at the end of the day be an alternative to the old grammar school system and selection. If people could establish schools which were intended to attract bright kids from the inner cities and that were free of the old dusty, discredited state schools in the area, and could provide arrangements for parents to get to them and prove that parents wished to use them, that surely would be a great deal better than allowing the system just to run on as it always has because there is no mechanism for changing it.
	I do not myself like selection except where it cannot be avoided but I do like parental choice. Over the next 10 or 20 years we shall have to make real strides in making parental choice a real possibility. As we can never be in a position where there is an enormous number of surplus places, choice has to be achieved by allowing parents to create schools where they need them and to abandon schools where they do not. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In responding to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should like also to speak to government Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B. These technical amendments put more fully into effect our original intentions in respect of the newspaper notice inviting proposals for additional secondary schools.
	As currently drafted, the clause requires the notice to specify all the information that must be contained in any proposals that are brought forward in response to the notice. We never intended the notice itself to go into that level of detail. The first amendment therefore removes the need for all the information that proposals must contain to be specified on the face of the notice. That will instead be listed in regulations, but in practice we expect that interested parties will refer to the guidance on statutory proposals, which will be updated to include pro formas giving all the necessary information.
	The second amendment provides for regulations to prescribe the information that must be contained in the notice, in addition to a possible site for the school and the date by which the proposals must be submitted, which are specified in the clause.
	The additional information that will be required by the regulations will be based on that specified in the first paragraph of the policy document that was prepared in another place for the Committee and deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House.
	That approach is really a technical adjustment to clarify our original intentions, and I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Bill should be amended accordingly. I shall spare Members of the Committee specific details on the newspaper notice—although I should be happy to go into them if any Member of the Committee requires it.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 250 and 252. Their effect would be to permit a charitable body approved by the Secretary of State, as well as the LEA, to publish a notice inviting proposals for the establishment of a maintained secondary school or academy. That is unnecessary because the amendments would not increase the powers of any person to bring forward proposals. Under existing legislation any person may already bring proposals for the establishment of a secondary school. Section 28(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 allows any persons, generally referred to as "promoters", to publish proposals for a new foundation or voluntary school. Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 enables any person to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to establish an academy.
	So there is no constraint on charitable bodies making proposals. Furthermore, Clause 66 provides that the LEA can publish proposals, as I have previously said in your Lordships' House, only for the establishment of a wholly new secondary school subsequent to it publishing a notice inviting others to bring forward proposals. If, for some reason, individuals or bodies do not want to publish proposals themselves but encourage others to do so, they are perfectly free at the moment to take any steps that they wish in order to achieve that.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the Dutch system. I should very much enjoy discussing that with him, but I fear that tonight may not be the best moment. I understand what he said in that regard and we have of course looked into the system on the basis of his known interest. We have also looked at the Learning from Europe report, which recognised in its foreword that the Government are interested in diversifying the provision of public services. That is a major element of the Education Bill.
	With those assurances, I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I quite agree that it is too late at night to discuss the Dutch education system, or anything else Dutch for that matter. I am sure that we shall find another opportunity to return to this matter at a more sensible time of day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B:
	Page 44, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
	Page 44, line 35, after "submitted," insert—
	"( ) specify such other matters as may be prescribed,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Duty of LEAs to secure proposals]:
	[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
	Clause 67 agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 254:
	After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
	"MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLS SIXTH-FORMS
	After section 113 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (inadequate sixth-forms) there is inserted—
	"113A MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLS SIXTH-FORMS
	(1) Where the Learning and Skills Council proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole.
	(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard.
	(3) A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places, and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for existing places, provided that the schools can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.""

Baroness Blatch: There is a great deal of disquiet about the future of sixth forms in the context of the advent of regional assemblies, the establishment of learning and skills councils, the thrust behind the Government's actions, and the organisation and funding of sixth forms. I well remember the Government's unequivocal promise in debates on establishing learning and skills councils that they would not have the power to remove sixth forms. We suspected at the time that the Government's agenda, if not hidden, was under the surface. It has been brought to fruition in the Bill.
	The National Association of Head Teachers remains most concerned about the powers granted to learning and skills councils to reorganise post-16 education and thereby close sixth forms. There is deep suspicion that LSCs will attack small sixth forms in particular and, on the back of area inspections, look to a tertiary solution in general.
	My colleagues in another place were denied the opportunity to debate the future of sixth forms because of the pernicious use of the guillotine procedure; otherwise, they would certainly have introduced an amendment with a presumption against closure of a sixth form where the governing body believed that it was of value to the school as a whole. My colleagues would also have produced an amendment to protect per capita funding, even if the number of pupils increased. I know that they were concerned to ask the Government to continue to provide per capita funding and to guarantee it for five years from April, with local learning and skills councils free to increase funding but not decrease it. As we all know, as numbers expand, the per pupil amount of money is not necessarily guaranteed.
	The first part of the amendment provides that where a learning and skills council proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole. The proposed subsection (2) states that presumption shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard. If a sixth form is not providing good education, there will be a formal inspection. Only subject to that would the proposed subsection (1) apply.
	Finally, a maintained school that provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of 19 may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places. The relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for existing places, provided that the school can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.
	The Government make much of wanting to provide education in all areas to match the needs of young people. Rural areas in particular, where there is much less choice, become attached to schools that have sixth forms. Those areas are increasingly concerned about the external views of learning and skills councils, which will philosophically have an urge to rationalise 16-plus provision, make it administratively neat and tidy and create a tertiary system—ignoring the value of a sixth form to a particular school and the logistical problems faced by young people in rural areas, including the distances that they would have to travel to a sixth form or further education college.
	I believe it is absolutely right that the patchwork of provision for post-16 education should include a robust further education sector and a very robust sixth-form college centre, where that works. Certainly the noble Baroness will know that the collegiate system in the city of Cambridge works extremely well. There are also schools there which have sixth forms and value them. Therefore, there is a mixture of sixth forms, a sixth-form college system, further education colleges and even workplace education. I believe that those should be allowed to exist.
	From informal contacts with the learning and skills councils, especially at national level, we know that there is definitely an agenda here. Because of that, we are supporting the National Association of Head Teachers. We also support the idea that all schools that have a sixth form should continue to enjoy that sixth form unless, under the second part of my amendment, the quality of education becomes so poor that it would not be advisable for the school to continue with that sixth form. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I also want to speak to Amendments Nos. 255, 256 and 257, which also raise concerns about precisely what the extension of powers of the Learning and Skills Council, as contained in Clause 68, means. These three amendments are probing amendments. They seek to find out a little more about precisely what the Government and the Learning and Skills Council have in mind.
	The first—Amendment No. 255—comes from the Association of Colleges. It is concerned with trying to obtain a clearer picture of what the Government's intentions are in relation to the circumstances under which the Learning and Skills Council will be empowered to bring forward proposals for the establishment and reorganisation of sixth forms.
	In the consultation paper, 16-19 Organisation and Inspection, which preceded the Bill, the Government proposed two triggers which would allow the Learning and Skills Council to initiate proposals for the improvement of 16 to 19 provision. The first would come from recommendations arising from the report on area inspection; the second would arise where other evidence, such as institutional reports of student achievement or participation rates, convinced the Learning and Skills Council that provision in the area was not sufficient or adequate to meet the needs of the students. The first proposal is embodied in proposed new Section 113A, but the second has been replaced by a much more general power embodied in subsection (1)(b) to specify in regulations other circumstances where the LSC would be able to act.
	Changes to the organisation of 16 to 19 provision are frequently controversial because of the impact on existing provision, both in regard to changes in the character of institutions and on access for students. Often, they will also have substantial implications for employment, involve significant investment and require restructuring of a learning delivery system. Only rarely will changes be possible which do not affect existing institutions to any significant extent; for example, where new provision is being developed in response to major population growth and new housing development.
	Equally, while there would be general agreement about the desirability of improving the quality of provision and raising standards, the assessment of quality involves subjective judgments as well as objective evidence. The relationship between the organisation of provision and quality is complex. In consequence, it is vital, first, that it can be shown objectively that the reorganisation is necessary and that other measures would not achieve a similar outcome; secondly, that the basis on which proposals are developed are clear and transparent; and thirdly, that the proposals are cost-effective and will result in clear improvement.
	Therefore, Amendment No. 255 is intended to probe how far the Government intend to use these powers. It is based on four propositions reflecting those considerations. The first is that the evidential basis for action should be established clearly and publicly by the Learning and Skills Council before any action is proposed. Secondly, re-organisation should not automatically be the preferred option where there are weaknesses in the provision and other options for improvement should also be considered, and considered on an equal footing. Thirdly, there should be a formal published assessment of the impact of any re-organisation proposal on local providers, taking into account access, personnel, finance and estates issues. Lastly, the criteria that should be used to assess the validity of the proposals should be consistent and should, as a minimum, cover the impact on existing provision in both institutions that are the subject of proposals.
	Amendment No. 256 proposes that the additional powers intended for the Learning and Skills Council, as outlined in Clause 68, are interventionist and go against local accountability, in that it has always been the role of LEAs, schools and local organisation committees to put forward proposals concerning school organisation. Clause 68 and Schedule 9 provide additional powers to the Learning and Skills Council in England and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales relating to the restructuring of sixth forms.
	We are opposed to the proposal that enables the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals directly to the Secretary of State concerning school sixth forms. Local accountability must be maintained by safeguarding the decision-making processes of the school organisation committees. The Learning and Skills Council should not be able to gainsay the decisions made by the school organisation committees, as those committees were originally set up to consider school organisation proposals with all the local stakeholder groups involved.
	Local accountability and democratic processes will be seriously undermined should the Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales be given further extended powers in relation to the establishment, alteration and closure of maintained sixth forms.
	Amendment No. 257 relates to special educational needs. Its purpose is to ensure that disabled young people and the parents of disabled children and children with special educational needs in schools in the area are consulted about any proposals to establish, alter or discontinue sixth form provision and that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales take account of those views.

Lord Lucas: I would be grateful if the Minister could help me in relation to the interpretation of new Section 113A(3). Paragraph (a) appears to refer to what I would call a sixth form college, except that it is now to be established by a local education authority but it is a school providing sixth form education only. Why is that not to be established as a sixth form college? Why is it to be established under the aegis of the local education authority? Have I misunderstood what kind of a body it is? Similarly in subsection (3)(c) are there any such bodies that could be discontinued? I was not aware that there were any maintained schools that offered only sixth form education.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Once, many years ago—more than I care to remember—I led the parliamentary football team on to the pitch at Old Trafford after 67,000 spectators had left the ground because the main match had finished. The Members of Parliament played to a house of 200 supporters who were locked in because they were regarded as potential hooligans and were not allowed out at that time. I feel that this evening I am again in that position. A substantive Committee has now been reduced to a diligent few. I am grateful to those who have stayed.
	I have a sympathetic response to a number of the amendments in this group, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will recognise that I have a little less sympathy with hers. The Bill, together with the regulations and guidance for which it provides, will have the effect of ensuring that the LSC proposes changes to the pattern of sixth form education only where there is real evidence of local need and only where change would clearly benefit the young people in the area. That is why the LSC will be able to make proposals only under clear conditions. Therefore, I want to dispel the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the LSC may be conducting its affairs in some position of prejudice against small sixth forms. That is far from the case.
	The first clear condition on which the LSC will operate is set out on the face of the Bill; namely, the follow up to an area inspection. The second condition, which we shall be putting into regulations, will ensure that sixth-form proposals may be published only where there is clear, objective evidence of local need. That evidence may come, for instance, from recent institutional inspection reports or from local achievement and participation data.
	In addition, the regulations and guidance provided for in the Bill will ensure that, rather than relating to single institutions, the LSC proposals will be based on a clear assessment of the overall need in an area. We are clear that for the purposes of this new power, proposals should relate to the quality and sufficiency of provision in an area as a whole.
	We shall consult representatives of schools, Churches, colleges and other relevant local interests on the detailed arrangements for developing and determining 16-19 proposals for the LSC. In doing so, we intend to ensure that local LSCs must fully consult with all local interests, including, of course, the schools that may be affected. Local LSC proposals must be approved by the national LSC Young People's Learning Committee before publication. That will ensure consistency with national policy and priorities. In preparation for that role, the LSC is granting to the Churches membership of that committee and strengthening its expertise in schools matters.
	Any objections, comments or concerns must be fully described in the material that will be submitted to the Secretary of State, alongside the published proposal. In making any decision, the Secretary of State will take full account of the strength of the case for reorganisation; the extent to which solutions other than reorganisation have been considered; the breadth of local consultation; and the nature and extent of any local objections.
	Those measures guarantee that the voice of individual sixth forms, to which the noble Baroness quite properly drew attention, will be heard in the proposal and decision-making processes. But, crucially, they will also ensure that, without preconceptions or in-built biases, local 16-19 reorganisation proposals consider the range and quality of local provision across all the relevant providers and offer a solution that best meets the overall needs of the area.
	In my view, by linking the possibility of closure simply to the views of the sixth form concerned regardless of the wider local needs, Amendment No. 254 takes a totally different and retrograde approach.
	I have greater sympathy for the other amendments. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, expressed her position in terms of the need for effective local consultation. I say at the outset that the Government accept the spirit of the amendments that she has tabled. However, as a general principle, we are not in favour of specifying in the Bill the details of the proposal-making processes. In the light of earlier experience, we need flexibility to adjust those processes to meet concerns or unforeseen circumstances.
	I should add that we are also committed to further future consultation on all the details of the processes needed to support this new power. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to consult widely with representatives of Churches, schools, head teachers, LEAs, colleges and others. I fear that the amendments before us today would pre-empt much of the consultation that we undertake to carry out. I agree with the noble Baroness that the key to the proposal-making process is that it should be transparent. The information and analysis that support local proposals must be available to all those who may be affected, as a basis for full discussion about the best way forward for tackling local weaknesses, raising standards, and improving supply, as well as promoting participation in 16 to 19 learning. I recognise that the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 255, rightly identifies some of the most important elements that are needed to ensure this openness. However, I hope that she will also recognise that we have proposals in hand for improving the process of consultation after we have been able to extend our work more widely.
	I turn to Amendment No. 256. It is certainly essential that school organisation committees can make an input for 16 to 19 proposals that affect them. The consultation paper on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection that we published in the autumn made it clear that we envisaged that school organisation committees and LEAs, school and college interests must be fully consulted.
	Where I disagree somewhat with the noble Baroness is in the detail of the procedure. The consultation paper envisaged that the learning and skills council would be required to send proposals to the relevant school organisation committees, which would have the right to attach comments after consulting other local interests. The LSC would then be obliged to submit any comments from the school organisation committee with its own proposals as a package to the Secretary of State. That process was strongly supported in the consultation.
	Amendment No. 256, which is also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would substitute for this a two-stage process in which the Secretary of State would, first, receive the proposal, and then consult the relevant school organisation committees. The differences are not critical: both options would achieve broadly the same. I am happy to give the Committee a clear assurance that we shall be ensuring that school organisation committees have a statutory right to be consulted.
	We accept the principle that Amendment No. 257 seeks to establish. Indeed, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that we intend to take that principle further. We wish to ensure that the process for local proposals takes account of the views of the full range of young people and parents who may be affected by changes in their area. That effort ought to go wider than those affected by disability or SEN provision, while ensuring that those particular needs are separately and clearly identified.
	I hope, therefore, that I have persuaded the noble Baroness that we accept the many good points made in her amendments. We shall be reflecting their spirit in the arrangements that we intend to put in place. Where we disagree in principle, we do so to support the effective local planning and collaboration needed to secure a wide range of high quality opportunities for all young people. In either case, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this part of the Bill should not be amended in any of the ways proposed today. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords will not press the amendments.

Lord Lucas: The noble Lord does not seem to have answered some of the questions that I asked. I hoped that I saw some communication floating his way from the Box. I shall be most grateful for some clarification. However, perhaps I may raise some further points in anticipation of that response.
	From what the noble Lord said, if the various local interests get together and decide that what they need is a consolidated sixth-form school "x", or that they need to establish what seems to be a quasi sixth-form college—I do not know why it is not a proper sixth-form college—once all the consultation has gone through, it seems to me that they will have the power to say to schools that are operating what they consider to be small sixth forms, "You have to close because we need the pupils for our sixth-form college", or, indeed, to make a big sixth form at school "x". That would be very foolish.
	Many pupils and parents will wish their children to carry on at the schools that they currently attend. The atmosphere in local schools with a small sixth form is very different from a sixth-form college or a school that gathers in children from a wide area. Those children who want a protected, less adult environment will often be much better off in their local school.
	Small sixth forms in both the private and state sector can perform extremely well. Pupils receive much more individual attention than in a larger college. The cost and burden of that can be accommodated in the overall provision for such schools. I have not observed that it has been at the expense of the rest of the school, but it seems to fit in well with the way in which a good school can be run.
	The two great sixth-form colleges that were established in the Cambridge area did not mean that sixth forms in the surrounding schools were abolished. They got smaller and one which was particularly enterprising has turned itself into Impington village college, which is an extraordinary establishment, born out of the pressure of having to compete with the sixth-form colleges. It has produced something unique and wonderful.
	The idea that a school should have to submit to diktat to close its sixth form because someone else wants its pupils is both against the wishes of parents and, in the long term, against the good of the school system as a whole.
	I hope that the Minister can answer my original question.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising that initial point. I agree with him entirely. Sixth forms play the role that he has identified. I hope that nothing I have said this evening detracts from our support, commitment and admiration for the enormously good work that is done by sixth forms of widely varying size across the country.
	I want to respond to the final point kindly made by the noble Lord. All local interests will be taken into account. I sought to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, whose amendments probed the issues of consultation, which we regard as extremely important. There is no doubt that when a sixth form is performing a function that is greatly valued by parents and young people, there is no question of its status being altered. The purpose and objectives of the LSC are how to enhance educational opportunities.
	The reason why I hestiated on the question posed by the noble Lord, for which I apologise, is that I was unable to remember the name of the school that was whizzing round in my mind. That is a problem that we all have late at night. There is a sixth-form college run by the local authority in Hammersmith—the William Morris school. It has a special status as it evolved in special circumstances a number of years ago. That is the exception to the general provision across the country, and that is why it has to be recognised. It is an interesting and fine establishment, but it is not a precursor to any other proposals for a similar institution.

Lord Lucas: I was referring to new Section 113A, which is how the new sixth-form only institutions will be established. They will be established as maintained schools under an LEA rather than as new sixth-form colleges. That is the wording that interests me most. Is it proposed that William Morris should be the model rather than the sixth form colleges that currently exist? If so, why has that been chosen, rather than—since the LSC is involved—creating new sixth-form colleges alongside existing ones?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The framework provides for the possibility of a sixth-form college developing under LEA auspices. Sixth-form colleges have established a good reputation in many parts of the country—the noble Lord referred to Cambridge, where there are two outstanding achievements. That is more likely to be the model, but we are not seeking to prejudge the position in this legislation.

Lord Lucas: Perhaps the noble Lord might prefer to write to me. It seems that new Section 113A only allows William Morris colleges to be established rather than sixth form colleges, which were originally FEFC colleges. If I have misunderstood the situation I am sorry, but I should like to understand how a sixth form FEFC college, on the old model, can be established under this part of the Bill.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has a reputation for modesty. He suggests that he might have misunderstood the position, but it is as likely that I have. If I have, I shall in due course apologise to him. I will certainly write to him, if necessary, with any correction to the position that I have put forward today.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his response to the various amendments to which I have spoken. I am reassured that the Government will consult fully locally on any move by the LSC and that it would be a transparent move.
	I have one reservation about the whole business. Too often there is a tendency to change for the sake of change. These are institutions, some of which have only just begun to put down and feel their roots. There is a rumour that we will see more change and that we shall have big sixth form/FE colleges for the 16 to 19-year olds, putting up Chinese walls between the various parts of their provision and so forth. That is all very unsatisfactory. We really want to give these colleges a chance to get off the ground and to develop the new relationship with the LSC. They are just beginning to do that and we do not want to see yet more change. I hope that none of these rumours will come true.
	In the meantime, given the lateness of the hour and the hope that we had that we were going to finish some time ago, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. No, I do not beg leave to withdraw, I just sit down.

Baroness Blatch: It is my amendment, so if anyone is going to withdraw the amendment, I shall. I just might run a vote. It would liven us all up. The Minister a moment ago referred to it being very late at night. I remind him that it is actually early in the morning that we are discussing the amendment.
	I am not surprised that the noble Lord floundered when he talked about William Morris. William Morris was established by stealth. It was illegal for a long time until in a recent statute the Labour Government made it legal. The students remained on the rolls of their parent school and not on that of William Morris. There is nothing like it in the country. The way that it was established and the way that Hammersmith and Fulham turned a blind eye to the legal position was an absolute disgrace. Indeed, I must say that I believe that the department was also complicit in that.
	My basic point is to ask why the LSC should be involved at all. Sixth forms are not add-ons to schools. Where they exist they are an integral part of the whole school. The idea of siphoning off the sixth forms to be responsible to another body—again an unelected and unaccountable body—away from the other part of the school which is accountable to its local education authority is a recipe for disaster. It is not surprising that they feel vulnerable.
	In the past when the Government have funded a whole school, the way that that money was spent by the school and how it was distributed between the teaching of sixth-formers and other children in the school was a matter for the governors.
	The staff who teach sixth-formers will teach other young people in the school. There is an integrated network of activities between the sixth form and the rest of the school. The notion that they are somehow add-ons is a retrograde step.
	I am rather sad that the Government have gone down that road, other than to understand what the hidden agenda is. The hidden agenda is tertiary education. In days gone by, the Labour Party made no secret of this. They do not dare mention its name now because they know it is unpopular with schools that have sixth forms. The truth is that they always did have an open agenda about tertiary education. Now, as I say, it is a policy that dare not speak its name.
	I should like an assurance from the Minister, today if possible, that a sixth form would only be abolished if it was failing in the quality of education that it offered its students, that it would not be closed on cost grounds; it would not be an economic decision. I wrote down the Minister's words. He said that it would be decided on the quality and sufficiency of provision. As well as asking for those assurances, I also want him to explain what he means by "sufficiency of provision". Is he saying that if it is possible to remove a sixth form and disperse the children around other schools in the area to satisfy a spare places argument, as opposed to whether or not the quality of education is good, a sixth form could be closed?
	The noble Lord views as a virtue the whole raft and panoply of consultation processes that would be in place. I am not concerned with that, because if the Learning and Skills Council wants to abolish sixth forms to achieve its hidden agenda, it can consult with all and sundry, with a relevant interest or otherwise, but at the end of the day, the LSC makes the decision. It can listen and be terribly patient, but if it wants a sixth form to be abolished, it has the power to do so. If the educational standard is satisfactory or better, on what other grounds could a sixth form be abolished?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I may disabuse the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of her notion that there is a secret agenda that is the result of a Labour Party commitment to tertiary education. She is absolutely right that there are people within the Labour Party, as there in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and all parties, in favour of tertiary education, but I assure her that I have never read a document issued by my party nor have I been involved in any discussion of education—and I have been in a few—in which there was a commitment to tertiary education as the sole route by which to provide post-16 education. I have never read such a document or been involved in such a process. She may know my party better than I do, but I beg to differ on that point.
	On the more general point about what criteria there are other than education, there are none—only the best possible educational opportunity for the children in the area. The noble Baroness must recognise that educational opportunity for young people these days must often have considerable breadth in its provision. Of course, it can be of high quality across a limited spectrum, but young people—and the wider society that we seek to educate and train—increasingly demand greater breadth and a greater range of choice in education. All of our proposals relating to changes in education for 14 to 19 year-olds are predicated on that assumption. She must recognise that an element in the decision must necessarily be what young people think of the quality of education provision as represented in terms of their breadth of opportunity.
	I assure the noble Baroness that the criterion relates to educational achievement and the raising of standards, which is the objective of the Learning and Skills Council, as it is of the Government.

Baroness Blatch: In 1998, during the debate on the Bill which established learning and skills councils, we were suspicious that the council would be given powers over the organisation and reorganisation of sixth forms. Ministers stood where the Minister stands tonight saying, "I should like to disabuse the noble Baroness of any fears that she may have that that may come about". Here we are, a mere couple of years later, and precisely what were our fears then have come to fruition. So the noble Lord does not convince me when he says, "I should like to disabuse the noble Baroness of her fears". Much of what we fear now on sixth forms' behalf will come to fruition.
	The noble Lord answered none of my questions. He did not say that sixth forms would be abolished only if their education was failing. He did not confirm that sixth forms would not be closed on the grounds of cost. He did not define the words "sufficiency of provision". He did not answer the question: if education was satisfactory or better, on what other grounds could a sixth form be abolished?
	I hope that the Minister will write to me on all those points between now and the next stage. I will return to the matter, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 68 [Proposals relating to sixth forms]:
	[Amendments Nos. 255 to 260 not moved.]
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	Schedule 9 agreed to.
	Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
	Schedule 10 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.